Evaluation of the Montgomery County
Public Schools Assessment Program:
Kindergarten and Grade 1
Reading Report
Office of Shared Accountability
September 2002
Jennifer Nielsen, Ph.D.
Elizabeth Cooper-Martin, Ph.D.
Evaluation Specialists
OFFICE OF SHARED ACCOUNTABILITY
Dr. Wesley L Boykin, Director
850 Hungerford Drive
Rockville, Maryland 20850
(301) 279-3448
Dr. Jerry Weast
Superintendent of Schools
Dr. Frieda K. Lacey
Chief of Staff
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page
1
INTRODUCTION
3
The Montgomery County Kindergarten Initiative
3
MCPS Assessment Program
6
THE ACQUISITION OF READING SKILLS FOR MCPS
KINDERGARTEN INITIATIVE STUDENTS
12
Cohort Demographics
12
MAJOR EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND FINDINGS
16
1. Are MCPS kindergarten students making progress in their acquisition of
reading skills?
16
A Recap of Year 1 Kindergarten Initiative Findings: Foundational Skill
Areas
16
Presentation of Year 2 Kindergarten Initiative Findings: Foundational Skill
Areas and Text Reading
18
2. Are high-risk kindergarten students making progress in their acquisition
of reading skills?
20
A Recap of Year 1 Kindergarten Initiative Findings: Foundational Skill
Areas by Risk Group
20
Presentation of Year 2 Kindergarten Initiative Findings: Foundational Skill
Areas by Risk Group
21
3. Is there a full day K benefit? / Are students enrolled in different
kindergarten programs making different progress in the acquisition of
reading skills?
23
Results for Kindergarten Reading Performance, Cohort 1, Kindergarten
Initiative Year 1
27
Results for Kindergarten Reading Performance, Cohort 2, Kindergarten
Initiative Year 2
33
Office of Shared Accountability
Page i
Table of Contents (continued)
Results for Grade 1 Reading Performance, Cohort 1, Kindergarten Initiative
Students
Page
38
Overall Reading Performance of Grade 1 Students
43
4. Did Cohorts 1 and 2 students make comparable gains during year one
and year two of the Kindergarten Initiative?
48
A Comparison of Cohorts 1 and 2 of the MCPS Kindergarten Initiative
48
RECOMMENDATIONS
53
References
56
Office of Shared Accountability
Page ii
List of Tables
Table
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Page
Foundational Skills Area Assessments Scale Ranges and Benchmark
Performance Levels
Cohort Members Grade Levels and School Years
A Comparison of the Demographic Characteristics of Cohort 1 and
2 Students in Kindergarten
Percentage of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Students in Cohort 1
Achieving Benchmark Performance Levels in the Four Foundational
Skill Areas
Percentage of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Students in Cohort 2
Achieving Benchmark Performance Levels in the Six Foundational
Skill Areas
Percentage of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Students in Cohort 1
Achieving Benchmark Performance Levels in the Four Foundational
Skill Areas By Risk Group
Percentage of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Students in Cohort 2
Achieving Benchmark Performance Levels in Four Foundational
Skill Areas By Risk Group
Percentage of Cohort 2 Students Attaining Benchmark Performance
Levels on the Six Foundational Skill Area Assessments by ESOL
Service Status
Roll Out Plan of Full-day Kindergarten Programs for Three Groups
of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Elementary Schools
Performance of MCPS Cohort 1 Kindergarten Initiative Students at
the End of Grade 1 by Kindergarten Benchmark Performance Level
End of Grade One Reading Levels for MCPS Cohort 1 Kindergarten
Initiative Students by Risk Group
Percentage of MCPS Cohort 1 Kindergarten Initiative Students
Achieving Reading Benchmarks by the End of Grade 1 by Risk
Group
Percentage of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Students Achieving
Benchmark Performance Levels in the Six Foundational Skill Areas
Percentage of MCPS Kindergarten Imitative Students Achieving
Benchmark Performance Levels on All Four of the Foundational
Skill Areas By Risk Group
Percentage of Students Meeting Benchmark Performance Levels on
all Four Foundational Skill Area Assessments Across School
Groups and Cohorts by Head Start Participation
Office of Shared Accountability
7
12
14
17
18
20
21
22
23
44
45
46
49
50
52
Page iii
Appendices
Appendix
Page
1
Glossary of Terms
59
2
Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) SPSS Output
62
3
Tables A-1 through A-10 and Figures A1 through A-3
80
4
Kindergarten Decision Tree for 2002-03 School Year
89
Office of Shared Accountability
Page iv
EVALUATION OF THE MONTGOMERY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: KINDERGARTEN AND
GRADE 1 READING REPORT
Evaluators: Jennifer Nielsen, Elizabeth Cooper-Martin, John Larson, Jocie Cogen,
Carol Dutil
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the 2000-01 school year, Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) launched
its Kindergarten Initiative. This initiative served as a multifaceted strategy that expanded
full-day kindergarten and reduced class size programs in kindergarten classrooms across
the county, revised the existing kindergarten curriculum, provided ongoing professional
development through the summer and the school year, and increased communication
between parents of kindergarten students and schools in an attempt to help students
acquire reading skills. The design of the Kindergarten Initiative included an evaluative
component that is guided by the MCPS Assessment Program. This program uses systemwide implementation of a local, research-based assessment program in reading, to direct
future changes in the curriculum and professional development.
The following report details four major findings: the continued progress of the
acquisition of reading skills of both year 1 and year 2 Kindergarten Initiative students, the
full-day kindergarten benefit, the progress of year 1 Kindergarten Initiative students into
Grade 1, and evidence of an experience effect, better implementation in year 2 of the
program.
MCPS students continue to make progress in the acquisition of reading skills in year 2 of
the Kindergarten Initiative. By the end of the year, 69 percent of Kindergarten Initiative
students were achieving benchmark performance levels in four Foundational Skill Areas1.
In year 1 of the Initiative, 58 percent of students met this same benchmark, demonstrating
a nine percentage point increase in the number of students who achieved benchmark
performance levels in the foundational skill areas between year 1 and year 2. High-risk
students, who received Free and Reduced-price Meals (FARMS) only made the greatest
gains, with much work still needing to be done for those students receiving English as a
Second Language (ESOL) and FARMS and only ESOL services.
The Kindergarten Initiative has produced a full-day kindergarten benefit in both year 1
and 2 of the program. The full-day kindergarten benefit appears for both Head Start and
non-Head Start students, with all racial/ethnic groups benefiting similarly from the fullday kindergarten benefit. Partial evidence that the full-day kindergarten benefit is greater
for students most in need, as defined by risk group (ESOL/FARMS) is found in nonHead students only.
1
In year one of the Kindergarten Initiative, students were assessed on four Foundational Skill Areas. In
year two, students were assessed on six Foundational Skill Areas. For comparative purposes, only the four
Foundational Skill Areas common to both years one and two of the Initiative are discussed in this report.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 1
At the end of Grade 1, 84 percent of students were reading at the early fluent or fluent
level and met the Grade 1 reading proficiency benchmark. Again, while the majority of
students across all risk levels were reading at the early fluent or fluent level, only 51
percent of children in the ESOL and FARMS risk group were able to read text at these
levels. In tracking year one’s kindergarteners into Grade 1, we found that success in
Grade 1 is clearly related to reading achievement in kindergarten. Seventy-six percent of
students who achieved benchmark performance levels on all four foundational skill areas
in kindergarten were able to meet the reading proficiency benchmark in Grade 1.
Evidence of an experience effect has been found that shows that progress made in the
year 2 of the Initiative was even greater than the progress made in year 1. Year 2
Kindergarten Initiative teachers have the advantage of having more time to acquaint
themselves to the curriculum and the accompanying assessments, and experiencing an
additional year of professional development. As a result we can hope to see even greater
program successes in year 3 of this program.
Kindergarten Initiative students in both cohorts 1 and 2 have made progress while
attending kindergarten in Montgomery County Public Schools. Preliminary evidence of
sustained effects can be seen in Grade 1 progress. The children in cohorts 1 and 2 must
continue to be followed through subsequent years in the MCPS so that program
effectiveness can be examined and student successes can be shared with other counties
across the country.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
Children who are impoverished, cultural minorities, and learning English as a
second language are at a greater risk of academic failure than those students who do not
have these risk factors (Gordon & Yowell, 1994; Natriello, McDill, & Pallas, 1990;
Smith & O’Day, 1991). These children tend to have significantly weaker literacy skills
upon entering kindergarten than students who do not have these risk factors (J.D. Weast,
personal communication, March 7, 2001). Bridges-Cline documented the prevalence of
this achievement gap in kindergarten classrooms across Montgomery County during the
2000-01 school year (2001, March).
The Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) has pledged to narrow this gap
in student achievement by providing effective instructional programs delivered by highly
trained and dedicated staff within a supportive learning community, both inside and
around our schools (MCPS, 1999). The introduction of Public Law 107-110, the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which demands that every student, regardless of race,
ethnicity, or poverty level, meet academic standards in reading, math, and science
intensified our countywide mission to narrow this gap in achievement and ensure success
for all MCPS students.
The Montgomery County Kindergarten Initiative
In spring 2000, MCPS curricula were examined in an attempt to find a solution
for narrowing the gap. What we found was that the kindergarten curriculum lacked the
comprehensiveness needed to accelerate the performance of all students in literacy and
mathematics. It appeared that the weekly time allocations for reading and mathematics in
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 3
kindergarten programs across the county were insufficient in delivering a consistent
rigorous curriculum to our students. At that time, it was also very difficult for schools to
communicate with parents regarding their children’s performance and grade-level
expectations.
In response to these identified concerns, during the 2000-01 school year, MCPS
launched its Kindergarten Initiative. This initiative served as a multifaceted strategy that
revised the existing kindergarten reading and mathematics curricula, introduced a
consistent assessment program, expanded full-day and reduced-class size programs in
kindergarten classrooms across the county, provided ongoing professional development
through the summer and the school year, and increased communication between parents
of kindergarten students and schools.
The redesigned kindergarten curriculum, based on a review of the literature,
included more time for balanced literacy instruction and emphasized sustained highquality teaching during the language arts time block. The revised curriculum equipped
each kindergarten classroom in the county with consistent core materials and assessments
that would be administered during the fall and spring. These assessments would make it
possible for teachers to monitor student progress closely and to direct their instructional
efforts effectively toward the students with the greatest needs and weakest skill areas. A
new reporting tool was developed and implemented to facilitate effective communication
regarding these assessments between schools and parents. In addition, comprehensive
staff development was developed so that all kindergarten teachers would receive training
to ensure that the revised curriculum, and the accompanying assessments, would be
delivered consistently to our students county-wide. This training involved more than 400
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 4
teachers and provided up to 100 hours of staff development per teacher, with a major
portion of this training devoted to procedures for administering and scoring the
assessments.
During year one of the Kindergarten Initiative, full-day kindergarten programs
were offered in 17 elementary schools in Montgomery County, while the remaining
elementary schools offered half-day kindergarten programs. In the full-day kindergarten
classrooms, the student-teacher ratio was 15:1. In the half-day kindergarten classrooms,
the average student-teacher ratios were 22:1 (White, 2002). The 17 elementary schools
that offered full-day kindergarten programs during year one of the Kindergarten Initiative
were those schools with the highest concentration of students who were academically
disadvantaged and economically deprived. Currently, 56 MCPS elementary schools offer
full-day kindergarten programs, the initial 17 schools from year one, an additional 17
schools that offered full-day kindergarten during year two of the Initiative, and an
additional 22 schools that are offering full-day kindergarten for the first time this school
year (year three). Again, these schools were selected to offer full-day kindergarten
programs because they had the highest concentration of students who were academically
disadvantaged and economically deprived (the original 17 schools from year one), the
second highest concentration of students who were academically disadvantaged and
economically deprived (the next 17 added in year two) and the third highest
concentration of students who were academically disadvantaged and economically
deprived (the 22 schools added this school year, year three of the Kindergarten Initiative).
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 5
MCPS Assessment Program
Kindergarten Assessments: A primary goal of the kindergarten reading curriculum is to
support students’ acquisition of the beginning, foundational reading skills that will ensure
rapid transition into successful text reading as students progress into Grade 1. These
foundational skills are letter knowledge, print concepts, oral language, phonemic
awareness, phonics, and word knowledge. Letter knowledge, the ability to identify
alphabet letters, is assessed based on students’ ability to name upper and lowercase letters
with the Letter Identification Assessment Tool. Print concepts, the ability to demonstrate
book handling skills and print awareness concepts, is assessed based on students’
understanding of how printed language works in books (e.g., directional movement, one
to one matching, book conventions such as the front and back of the book, etc.) with the
Concepts About Print Assessment Tool. Oral language, the ability to speak clearly and
use a wide variety of words to convey ideas effectively, is assessed based on students’
control of oral language and grammatical structures, with the Record of Oral Language
Assessment Tool. Phonemic awareness, the ability to hear the distinct sounds in spoken
words, is assessed based on students’ ability to separately articulate and manipulate the
sounds of a spoken word (e.g., beginning sounds, rhyming, etc.) with the Phonemic
Awareness Assessment Tool.
Phonics, the ability to use knowledge of letter/sound
relationships to decode and write words, is assessed based on students’ ability to
associate and write letters for sounds heard in words in a dictated sentence with the
Hearing and Recording Sounds Assessment Tool. Finally, word knowledge, the ability to
identify high frequency words in print and decode unknown words, is assessed based on
students’ ability to read basic sight words by the Word Recognition Assessment Tool.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 6
For the purposes of evaluating kindergarten students’ progress toward successful
reading, score ranges of “substantial proficiency” were empirically established and
defined as benchmarks (Bridges-Cline, 2001, August). A summary of these foundational
skills, their assessment scale range, and their accompanying benchmark performance
levels is displayed in Table 1.
Table 1.
Foundational Skills Area Assessments Scale Ranges and Benchmark Performance Levels
Assessment Scale Range
Benchmark Performance
Levels
Year One Year Two
2000-01
2001-02
Year One
Year Two
2000-01
2001-02
Earliest Reading Skill Areas
Letter Identification
0 - 54
0 - 54
45 +
45 +
Concepts About Print
0 - 16
0 - 16
13 +
13 +
Oral Language Skill Areas
Record of Oral Language*
-0 - 21
-13 +
Phonemic Awareness*
-0 - 24
-14 +
More Advanced Reading Skill Areas
Hearing and Recording Sounds
0 - 14
0 - 15
8+
9+
Word Recognition
0 - 22
0 - 25
8+
11 +
* These skill area assessments were added in 2001-02 and were not administered in
2000-01.
The second step in the developmental continuum is early text reading. Oral
reading/fluency, the ability to read text aloud fluently and accurately, is assessed though
student’s oral reading accuracy and fluency by the Running Record Assessment Tool.
The Running Record Assessment Tool is administered individually to each student in the
class. The teacher first selects a book from one of the various levels of difficulty and
then asks the student to read it aloud. Errors in word recognition are recorded as the
student reads. If at least 90 percent of the words in the text are read correctly, the reading
stage that corresponds with that particular text is recorded.
Each of the textbooks
correspond to one of four reading stages: Fluent, Early Fluent, Upper Emergent, or Early
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 7
Emergent. A detailed description of these reading levels can be found in Appendix 1. If
word recognition accuracy were less than 90 percent, the teacher would select a lower
level text and repeated the process until the 90 percent criterion was met.
In kindergarten, there are five books listed on the Running Record that are part of
the kindergarten curriculum. These books levels one through five, one being the easiest,
five being the most difficult, provide text reading experiences for kindergarten students.
The running record allows teachers to monitor the progress of students as they approach
Grade 1 reading readiness. Some students may move beyond the kindergarten texts,
book level 5, and begin reading grade one texts. Based on findings presented by the
Office of Shared Accountability (OSA) (Bridges-Cline, 2001, August) and a review of
research based early childhood literacy programs, the Division of Early Childhood
Programs and Services (DECPS) established the benchmark for kindergarten text reading
proficiency as students reading the level 3 book with an accuracy rate of 90 percent or
above.
Grade One Assessments: Foundational reading skill assessments were used in Grade 1 to
check on the skills that a student needs in order to become a strong, fluent reader and to
provide guidance for instruction. For some of the tests, a Grade 1 (G1) version was
developed and used, in addition to the kindergarten (K) version. For the assessment in
spring 2002, teachers were instructed to give the following foundational tests to students
at or below the Early Emergent stage: Record of Oral Language (G1), Concepts about
Print (G1), Letter Identification (G1), Hearing & Recording Sounds (K), and Phonemic
Awareness (K). For students at the Upper Emergent stage, teachers were instructed to
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 8
give the following foundational tests: Record of Oral Language (G1), Hearing &
Recording Sounds (G1), Phonemic Awareness (G1), and Word Recognition (G1).
The text reading level was determined by the running record assessment for
Grade 1. In giving this assessment individually to each student in the class, the teacher
first selected a book at 1 of 14 levels of difficulty and then asked the student to read it
aloud. Errors in word recognition were recorded as the student read. If at least 90
percent of the words were read correctly, the student’s text level was one of four reading
stages associated with that text: Fluent, Early Fluent, Upper Emergent, or Early Emergent
(see Appendix 1). By convention in reporting these data, only the stage is reported, not
the level of the book within a stage. If word recognition accuracy was less than 90
percent, the teacher selected a lower level text and repeated the procedure until the 90
percent criterion was met (White, 2002).
In the MCPS Assessment Program, reading comprehension is assessed by means
of both oral and written responses elicited from the student.
In 2001-02, oral
comprehension scores were obtained for students who read a text at the Early Emergent,
Upper Emergent and Early Fluent stages; the teacher asked the student three to six
questions (depending on the book) immediately after the student read the text. Oral
scores were optional for students at the Fluent stage and were collected after completion
of the written comprehension task, if the teacher felt the written score was weak. The
written score was determined as follows. Following oral reading of a text, the teacher
provided the student with a response booklet containing two to five questions or prompts
to draw and write about the story or informational text read. The student was allowed
sufficient time to complete the task.
Office of Shared Accountability
At the spring 2002 assessment, the written
Page 9
comprehension score was obtained only for students who read a text at the Early Fluent
or Fluent level. The Grade 1 proficiency benchmark for 2001-02 was reading WibbleWobble, or a higher text level with an accuracy rate of 90 percent or higher, along with a
score of 2 or 3 (i.e., with partial or essential comprehension) on the written response. The
target text has a Reading Recovery level of 14 and at the Early Fluent level.
In early June 2002, the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Programs (OCIP)
held a series of scoring sessions of the written responses for all Grade 1 teachers at a
central location. In each scoring session, groups of teachers were assigned to a specific
title, and each group received scoring training that was specific to that book. The OCIP
trainers first reviewed the content of the book and the comprehension questions and
prompts. Then they reviewed and discussed model papers illustrating each of the score
points.
There were four score points, as follows: 3, representing “essential”
understanding; 2, representing “partial” understanding; 1, representing “minimal”
understanding; and 0, representing “no” understanding or no response. Scoring was
holistic, meaning that the student’s responses to all of the questions and prompts were
taken into account. Finally, each student’s paper was scored by at least two teachers.
Generally the first scorer was a teacher from the school that the student attended. If the
first two teachers disagreed on a paper, a third teacher scored it. Each score was recorded
on a data reporting form. All scores for each paper that received three scores were
entered into a database accessible by staff in the Office of Shared Accountability.
Reliability of the written comprehension scores was analyzed and found to be
more than adequate for analysis at a system-wide level. Across the eight book titles at
the Early Fluent or Fluent level (i.e., the only titles for which written comprehension
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 10
scores were available in spring 2002), there was from 69 to 78 percent exact agreement
on the first two scores. More than 99 percent of the first two scores were within one
score point of each other.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 11
THE ACQUISITION OF READING SKILLS FOR MCPS
KINDERGARTEN INITIATIVE STUDENTS
MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Students and their Acquisition of Reading Skills
A longitudinal study was conceptualized during the development of the Kindergarten
Initiative to monitor the trends in academic progress of three successive cohorts of
kindergarten students as they advance through the primary grades. The Kindergarten
Initiative was launched during the 2000-01 school year. The students who were in
kindergarten during year one of this initiative, the 2000-01 school year, are referred to as
cohort 1. In year two of the initiative, the 2001-02 school year, the members of cohort 1
entered into Grade 1. The incoming kindergarten students for the 2001-02 school year
are referred to as cohort 2. In year three of three of the initiative, the 2002-03 school
year, the members of cohort 1 entered into Grade 2. The members of cohort 2 entered
into Grade 1. The incoming kindergarten students for the 2002-03 school year are
referred to as cohort 3. A summary of the members of each cohort, their grade level, and
their corresponding school year is in presented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Cohort Members Grade Levels and School Years
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Cohort 3
2000 - 2001
K
2001 - 2002
1
K
2002 - 2003
2
1
K
2003 - 2004
2004 - 2005
2
1
2
Cohort Demographics
Cohort 1 Kindergarteners:
Cohort 1 kindergarteners were enrolled in kindergarten
during the 2000-01 school year. In kindergarten, students in cohort 1 (n=8748) were
predominantly five year olds. Slightly more than a quarter of the students in cohort 1
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 12
were four year olds. Almost half of the students in cohort 1 were White (48%), with the
remaining half consisting of African American (20%), Hispanic (19%), Asian American
(13%), and American Indian (<1%) students.
As presented in Table 3, almost one quarter of the students in cohort 1 received
Free and Reduced-price Meals (FARMS). Fifteen percent of the students in cohort 1
received English as a Second Language (ESOL) services. Thirty percent of the students
in cohort 1 are considered to be high risk students, those students receiving ESOL
services, FARMS, or both ESOL and FARMS. Fifteen percent of those students received
only FARMS, 7 percent of those students received only ESOL services, and 8 percent of
those students received both ESOL and FARMS services. The 8 percent of cohort 1
students in this risk group are considered to be the highest risk group.
Cohort 2 Kindergarteners: Cohort 2 kindergarteners were enrolled in kindergarten
during the 2001-02 school year. In kindergarten, students in cohort 2 (n=8827) were also
predominantly five year olds. Again, slightly more than a quarter of the students in
cohort 2 were four year olds. Almost half of the students in cohort 2 were White (45%),
and the remainder were African American (20%), Hispanic (21%), Asian American
(14%), and American Indian (<1%) students.
Twenty-five percent of the students in cohort 2 received Free and Reduced-price
Meals (FARMS). Twelve percent of the students in cohort 2 received English as a
Second Language (ESOL) services. Again, thirty percent of students in cohort 2 were
considered to be high risk students. Eighteen percent of those students received only
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 13
FARMS, 5 percent of those students received only ESOL services, and 7 percent of those
students received both ESOL and FARMS services.
Table 3.
A Comparison of the Demographic Characteristics of Cohort 1 and 2 Students in
Kindergarten
Gender
Male
Female
Age at Entry to Kindergarten
4 years
5 years
6+ years
Race/Ethnicity
American Indian
African American
Asian American
Hispanic
White
ESOL and FARMS Services in
Kindergarten
FARMS
ESOL
Not ESOL or FARMS
FARMS Only
ESOL Only
ESOL and FARMS
Special Education Services (with IEP)
Cohort 1
K in 2000-01
(N=8748)
Cohort 2
K in 2001-02
(N=8827)
51%
49%
52%
48%
27%
72%
1%
27%
71%
2%
<1%
20%
13%
19%
48%
<1%
20%
14%
21%
45%
23%
15%
70%
15%
7%
8%
7%
25%
12%
70%
18%
5%
7%
6%
The longitudinal study that was conceptualized during the development of the
Kindergarten Initiative set out to monitor the trends in academic progress of three
successive cohorts of kindergarten students as they advanced through the primary grades
using the MCPS Assessment Program. These assessments, developed locally based on
the literature, were designed with this sole purpose in mind. However the longitudinal
study/program evaluation will use this assessment information in two ways. Primarily,
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 14
the assessments will provide the data needed to monitor the trends in academic progress
of the Kindergarten Initiative.
Secondly, the assessment information provides an
opportunity for program designers to use evaluation findings to fine-tune the
Kindergarten Initiative so that it can be more effective in helping MCPS kindergartners’
learn reading and math skills.
This initiative is a multifaceted, multi-year effort to continuously expand and
strengthen the early learning opportunities and instructional environments offered to our
youngest students to ensure that they acquire strong academic foundations upon which to
build as they move through the primary grades. The accompanying program evaluation
is also multifaceted, incorporating formative and summative findings, and capable of
providing recommendations that will inform stakeholders how to better develop,
implement, and expand the Kindergarten Initiative.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 15
MAJOR EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND FINDINGS
1. Are MCPS kindergarten students making progress in their acquisition of
reading skills?
A Recap of Year 1 Kindergarten Initiative Findings: Foundational Skill Areas
Fall-to-spring gains for the first cohort of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative students
were analyzed in August 2001, (Bridges-Cline, 2001, August). This cohort consisted of
all students who had both fall and spring letter identification and concepts about print
foundational skill area assessment scores, and students who missed less than one month
of school.
These gains were examined by risk group, kindergarten program, and
participation in Head Start. Those students considered to be at lowest risk were members
of the cohort who did not receive FARMS or ESOL services. Those students considered
to be at high risk were members of the cohort who received FARMS or ESOL services,
or both ESOL and FARMS services.
Kindergarten Initiative students could be in one of two kindergarten programs:
half-day or full-day kindergarten. In year one of this program there were 17 elementary
schools offering the full-day program. In year two, the 2001-02 school year, the number
of schools offering full-day kindergarten grew to 34. In year three, the 2002-03 school
year, the number of schools offering full-day kindergarten will grow to 56. During this
school year cohort 3 students will be entering kindergarten.
MCPS offers a Head Start program for income-eligible three- and four-year olds.
This year, more than 1,600 children are enrolled in the program. The Head Start program
provides education; parent involvement; and health, disabilities, nutrition, and social
services.
The Head Start Web site lists a variety of educational opportunities that
program participants will experience including, talking, listening and conversing with
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 16
others; listening and dramatizing stories; recognizing names, colors, shapes, numbers,
and letters; solving problems; painting, drawing, and creating; and measuring, counting,
and classifying. These activities are designed to nurture the participating children’s
social, emotional, intellectual, linguistic, and physical development.
At the beginning of the 2000-01 school year, the percentage of students achieving
benchmark performance levels in all four of the foundational skill areas ranged from 12
to 41percent. By spring, the percentage of students achieving benchmark performance in
these skill areas ranged from 82 to 90 percent. Increases in the percentage of students
achieving these foundational skills were observed in all four areas, with the greatest
increase (73%) observed in the percentage of students acquiring word recognition skills.
A summary of these fall-to-spring gains can be found below in Table 4.
Table 4.
Percentage of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Students in Cohort 1 Achieving Benchmark
Performance Levels in the Four Foundational Skill Areas
N = 7849
Letter ID
Print Concepts
Hearing & Recording Sounds
Word Recognition
Office of Shared Accountability
Fall 2000
41%
20%
26%
12%
Spring 2001
90%
82%
82%
85%
Page 17
Presentation of Year 2 Kindergarten Initiative Findings: Foundational Skill Areas and
Text Reading
Fall-to-spring gains for the second cohort of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative
students were analyzed in August 2002, (Bridges-Cline, 2002). This cohort consisted of
all students who had fall and spring letter identification, concepts about print, and record
of oral language foundational skill area assessment scores, and students who missed less
than one month of school. These gains also were examined by risk group, kindergarten
program, and participation in Head Start.
At the beginning of the year, the percentage of students achieving benchmark
performance levels in all six of the foundational skill areas ranged from 16 to 68 percent.
By spring, the percentage of students achieving benchmark performance in these skill
areas ranged from 77 to 93 percent. Increases in the percentage of students achieving
these foundational skills were observed in all six areas, with the greatest increases (54%)
observed in the percentage of students acquiring print concept and hearing and recording
sound skills. A summary of these fall-to-spring gains can be found in Table 5.
Table 5.
Percentage of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Students in Cohort 2 Achieving Benchmark
Performance Levels in the Six Foundational Skill Areas
N = 8005
Letter ID
Print Concepts
Oral Language
Phonemic Awareness
Hearing & Recording Sounds
Word Recognition
Office of Shared Accountability
Fall 2001
51%
28%
68%
45%
23%
16%
Spring 2002
93%
86%
87%
88%
77%
82%
Page 18
During the second year of professional development associated with the
Kindergarten Initiative, teachers were informed of the importance of assessing their
students’ text reading skills in addition to their foundational reading skills. In year one of
the Kindergarten Initiative, text reading skills were not consistently assessed for all
students in Cohort 1, and therefore are not presented in this report. Cohort 2 kindergarten
students made excellent progress during year two of the Kindergarten Initiative with
regard to text reading. Upon entry into kindergarten, an astounding 11 percent of cohort
2 students were already reading above the kindergarten text reading benchmark (Figure
1). By the end of the year, 61 percent of cohort 2 students were reading above the
kindergarten text reading benchmark.
Figure 1.
Kindergarten Text Reading Levels of Cohort 2 Students
100%
80%
Above
Benchm ark
60%
At Benchm ark
40%
Reading
Ready
20%
0%
Fall 2001
Spring
2002
Not Yet on
Text
Those students who are classified as reading ready were reading a level one or two text
(Appendix 1), those students who were reading at benchmark were reading a level three
text with an accuracy rate of 90 percent or above. Students reading a level four text or
above were classified as above benchmark
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 19
2. Are high risk kindergarten students making progress in their acquisition of
reading skills?
A Recap of Year 1 Kindergarten Initiative Findings: Foundational Skill Areas by Risk
Group
At the beginning of the 2000-01 school year, very few high risk students were
achieving benchmark performance levels on the four foundational skill areas.
One
percent of FARMS only students, 1 percent of ESOL only students, and less than one
percent of ESOL and FARMS students were successful in achieving benchmark
performance levels on the four foundational skill areas. By spring, 47 percent of the
FARMS only students were able to achieve benchmark performance in four of the four
foundational skill areas, an increase of 46 percentage points. This increase also was
observed in ESOL only students, a 38 percent increase, and in ESOL and FARMS
students, a 32 percent increase. For the low risk group, those students receiving neither
FARMS nor ESOL services, a 61 percent increase was observed. These fall-to-spring
gains are presented below in Table 6.
Table 6.
Percentage of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Students in Cohort 1 Achieving Benchmark
Performance Levels in the Four Foundational Skill Areas By Risk Group
Non- ESOL / Non-FARMS (n = 5534)
FARMS Only (n = 1219)
ESOL Only (n = 468)
ESOL & FARMS (n = 628)
Total (n = 7849)
Office of Shared Accountability
Fall 2000
4%
1%
1%
<1%
2%
Spring 2001
65%
47%
39%
32%
58%
Page 20
Presentation of Year 2 Kindergarten Initiative Findings: Foundational Skill Areas by
Risk Group
At the beginning of the 2001-02 school year, again, very few high risk students
were achieving benchmark performance levels on the four foundational skill areas. Four
percent of FARMS only students, 4 percent of ESOL only students, and less than 1
percent of ESOL and FARMS students were successful in achieving benchmark
performance levels on five or six of the foundational skill areas. By spring, 60 percent of
the FARMS only students were able to achieve benchmark performance on the four
foundational skill areas, an increase of 56 percentage points. This increase was also
observed in ESOL only students, a 33 percent increase, and in ESOL and FARMS
students, a 36 percent increase. For the low risk group, those students receiving neither
FARMS nor ESOL services, a 65 percent increase was observed. These fall-to-spring
gains are presented in Table 7.
Table 7.
Percentage of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Students in Cohort 2 Achieving Benchmark
Performance Levels in Four Foundational Skill Areas By Risk Group
Non- ESOL / Non-FARMS (n = 5594)
FARMS Only (n = 1532)
ESOL Only (n = 369)
ESOL & FARMS (n = 510)
Total (n = 8005)
Fall 2001
12%
4%
4%
<1%
10%
Spring 2002
77%
60%
37%
36%
70%
ESOL only students, along with ESOL & FARMS students, are consistently
performing at substantially lower levels than their English speaking peers in each
foundational skill area that pertains to oral language. This finding, consistent to both
Cohort 1 and 2 ESOL students suggests that the services that ESOL only students are
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 21
receiving are not adequately preparing our second language learning students for
attaining benchmark performance levels.
To illustrate this, a comparison of the
percentage of students from Cohort 2 who met benchmark performance levels on the six
foundational skill areas assessed in 2001-02 is presented in Table 8, by ESOL service
status.
Table 8.
Percentage of Cohort 2 Students Attaining Benchmark Performance Levels on the Six
Foundational Skill Area Assessments by ESOL Service Status
Letter ID
Print Concepts
Oral Language
Phonemic Awareness
Hearing & Recording Sounds
Word Recognition
Office of Shared Accountability
Cohort 2 (n = 8005)
Non ESOL
ESOL
(n = 7126)
(n = 879)
95%
81%
90%
57%
92%
46%
91%
57%
81%
49%
85%
60%
Page 22
3. Is there a full day K benefit? / Are students enrolled in different kindergarten
programs making different progress in the acquisition of reading skills?
The Kindergarten Initiative involved a variety of improvements, and so it is
appropriate to evaluate its impact on academic performance. As described earlier, this
Initiative included a revised curriculum, new assessments, and professional development.
All kindergarten children in 2000-01 and in 2001-02 received these three components of
the Initiative, as shown in Table 9. Because these changes were implemented in all
schools, it is not possible to evaluate the Kindergarten Initiative by comparing schools
with these changes to schools without these changes.
Furthermore, because new
assessments were a part of the Initiative, there is not the same assessment data for the
kindergarten group that preceded cohort 1 and so it is not possible to use an earlier group
of kindergarten students for comparison.
Table 9.
Roll Out Plan of Full-day Kindergarten Programs for Three Groups of MCPS
Kindergarten Initiative Elementary Schools
Year of
Kindergarten
Initiative
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Cohort 3
School
Group
Revised
Curriculum
New
Assessments
Professional
Development
Full Day K
One
(2000-01)
Two
(2001-02)
Three
(2002-03)
K
1
K
+22
17
+17
+22
17
+17
+22
17
2
1
K
+17
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
♦
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 23
However, as illustrated in Table 9, the one component of the Kindergarten
Initiative that differed across schools was the roll out of a full-day kindergarten program
coupled with reduced class sizes. Specifically, the full-day component was rolled out
first to the most academically impoverished schools in our county. Previous research
findings, which suggested that providing the most intensive services to the students with
the most intensive needs helps increase academic performance, supported this roll out
plan.
In year one of the Kindergarten Initiative, 17 schools offered a full-day
kindergarten program, with an additional 17 schools offering a full-day program in year
two (2001-02), giving MCPS a total of 34 schools with full-day kindergarten programs
and 85 schools with half-day programs. In year three of the Initiative, 2002-03, 22 more
schools began offering a full-day kindergarten program bringing the total number of
schools with a full-day kindergarten program to 56. These differences in kindergarten
program create the opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of the Kindergarten Initiative
by comparing reading performance for students in schools with full-day kindergarten
programs to students in schools with half-day kindergarten programs to see if there is a
full-day kindergarten benefit.
In general, when making comparisons between schools that received a new
program (full-day kindergarten) and schools without the new program (half-day
kindergarten), it is most appropriate to compare the most similar schools. Using the most
appropriate comparison groups helps us to be sure that we compare schools with
comparable demographics, students, and circumstance. Given that the first schools to
receive the full-day kindergarten program faced incredible challenges (serving high
percentages of second language learners, students affected by poverty, and mobility), it
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 24
was not appropriate to compare them to every school within the system receiving a halfday kindergarten program. The groups of schools that will provide the most appropriate
comparisons are those groups of schools slated to roll out the full-day kindergarten
program within the first three years of the Initiative.
Additionally, in order to separate the impact of full-day kindergarten from other
factors that have been shown to affect reading, the analyses take into account three
factors: Head Start participation, racial/ethnic groups, and risk groups as defined by
ESOL/FARMS status. The first factor, participation in the Head Start program has been
shown to affect kindergarten reading performance (Bridges-Cline, 2001, August). To
take these findings into account, it was important to examine student achievement with
regard to their participation in the Head Start program. The second and third factors,
differences between racial/ethnic groups, and differences between risk groups
(ESOL/FARMS groups) need to be considered because of the historical differences in
performance between these groups both in Montgomery County and across the nation.
By including these three factors in the analyses we can test if the full-day
kindergarten program is beneficial for all groups of students, or if there are specific
groups of students who benefit more from the program. To incorporate the factors of
racial/ethnic groups and risk groups into the analyses, the statistical approach of multiple
analysis of variance was used. Specific contrasts were formulated that allowed us to
examine each of these two factors independently and collectively.
We conducted
separate analyses for each Head Start group, which prevents us from making statements
about all students, regardless of participation in Head Start. Additionally, the Head Start
and non-Head Start groups were never directly compared in any of the analyses.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 25
The results from our analysis are presented below in two ways. First, a discussion
of differences between groups of students will be presented. This discussion reflects the
statistically significant results found in the analyses, presented in a manner that is clear
and concise. Second, a more statistically oriented approach will be presented using the
tables that will be contained in the appendix of this report. The statistical results of the
multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) procedures, along with syntax and
commentary, will be presented in Appendix 2.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 26
Results for Kindergarten Reading Performance, Cohort 1, Kindergarten Initiative Year 1
The first set of results that will be presented are based on kindergarten
assessments from cohort 1.
Specifically, the analysis examined the percentage of
students who met benchmark on four out of four foundational reading skills (i.e., Letter
Identification, Concepts about Print, Word Recognition, Hearing and Recording Sounds)
by the end of Kindergarten. In year one, 17 schools had full-day kindergarten; the results
from this group (FDK 17 – School Group 17 in Table 9) were compared to two groups of
schools with half-day kindergarten in 2000-01: HDK +17, the 17 schools with full-day
kindergarten in 2001-02 (School Group +17 in Table 9), and HDK +22, the 22 schools
with full-day kindergarten in 2002-03 (School Group +22 in Table 9). For all subsequent
analyses, these school groups (17, +17, and +22) will be referred to as either FDK (if the
schools had full-day programs in the indicated year), or HDK (if the schools had half-day
kindergarten in the indicated year) and the number 17, +17, or +22, that indicates the
school group being compared.
Performance benchmarks broken down by racial/ethnic groups and risk groups
(ESOL/FARMS groups) are presented in Figures 2 and 3. (There are too few ESOL only
children in the full-day kindergarten group and too few American Indian students overall
to give reliable results.)
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 27
Figure 2.
Average Full-day Kindergarten Benefit for Cohort 1 Students by Racial/Ethnic Groups
and Participation in Head Start
HEAD START
NON-HEAD START
BENEFIT
BENEFIT
ASIAN AMERICAN
ASIAN AMERICAN
69
69
66
+3
62
0
25
50
64
+7
75
0
100
AFRICAN AMERICAN
25
50
63
50
31
+13
75
+11
100
0
25
+20
50
75
100
WHITE
69
63
65
25
50
33
+4
66
75
+31
100
0
25
50
75
100
HISPANIC
47
50
+5
42
27
25
+30
32
+3
HISPANIC
0
100
40
WHITE
0
75
51
+15
50
25
+26
AFRICAN AMERICAN
48
0
+5
43
10
+20
50
75
+28
32
100
0
+40
25
50
75
100
Average Benefit for Head Start = 24%
Average Benefit for Non-Head Start = 9%
SCHOOL GROUPS
FDK17
Office of Shared Accountability
HDK+17
HDK22
Page 28
Figure 3.
Average Full-day Kindergarten Benefit for Cohort 1 Students by Risk Groups and
Participation in Head Start
NON-HEAD START
HEAD START
BENEFIT
NOT ESOL / NOT FARMS
BENEFIT
NOT ESOL / NOT FARMS
69
62
60
38
+9
62
+24
34
+28
+7
0
25
50
75
100
0
FARMS ONLY
25
50
60
+15
45
41
25
50
28
+19
75
100
0
25
50
75
100
42
30
25
+9
11
75
+17
9
+28
50
+32
FARMS & ESOL
39
25
+17
43
FARMS & ESOL
0
100
FARMS ONLY
60
0
75
+33
100
0
25
50
75
100
Average Benefit for Head Start = 25%
Average Benefit for Non-Head Start = 15%
SCHOOL GROUPS
FDK17
Office of Shared Accountability
HDK+17
HDK22
Page 29
In Figures 2 and 3, the horizontal axis for each small bar chart represents the
percentage of children who met benchmark on four of four foundational skills. For
example, for the group of Head Start students who are Asian American, 69 percent of this
group in FDK 17 schools met four of four benchmarks; 64 percent of this group of
students in HDK +17 schools met all four benchmarks, and 43 percent of this group of
students in HDK +22 schools met all four benchmarks.
In Figures 2 and 3, there are numbers with a plus sign to the right of the three bars
in each small bar chart. Each of these numbers represents the difference in percentage of
students at benchmark between the group of schools with full-day kindergarten (FDK 17)
and a group of schools with half-day kindergarten. The top number equals the difference
in percentage of students at benchmark between FDK 17 and HDK +17. In Figure 2, for
Head Start students who are Asian American, this difference is +5. It means that, among
Asian American students who attended Head Start, 5 percent more in FDK 17 schools,
than in HDK +17 schools, met the benchmark. This positive difference indicates a fullday kindergarten benefit. The bottom number in the benefit column equals the difference
in percentage of students at benchmark between FDK 17 schools and HDK +22 schools.
For Head Start students who are Asian American, this difference is +26, indicating that
26 percent more of these students in FDK 17 schools, than in HDK +17 schools, met the
four benchmarks. Again, this positive number represents a full-day kindergarten benefit.
A review of Figure 2 shows a positive full-day kindergarten benefit for each racial
group among non-Head Start and among Head Start children, and for comparisons
between the full-day kindergarten group, FDK 17, and each set of schools with half-day
kindergarten. Although the size of the full-day kindergarten benefit varies across racial
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 30
groups, these differences are not statistically significant. In other words, for both Head
Start and non-Head Start children, a full day-K benefit exists for every racial/ethnic
group, and there is no statistical evidence that this benefit helps any one racial/ethnic
group more than another. For non-Head Start students, the average benefit across the
four racial/ethnic groups and all comparisons of full-day versus half-day is 9 percent and
for Head Start students the average benefit is 24 percent.
In other words, for all
racial/ethnic groups, more students in full-day kindergarten met the benchmark than their
peers in half-day kindergarten.
As seen in Figure 3, there is a full-day kindergarten benefit for each of the three
ESOL/FARMS risk groups. Although the magnitude of the full-day kindergarten benefit
does vary across risk groups, this variation is not statistically significant. In other words,
for both Head Start and non-Head Start children, a full day-K benefit exists for every
ESOL/FARMS risk group, and there is no statistical evidence that this benefit helps any
one risk group more than another. Across the three ESOL/FARMS groups, for NonHead Start students, the average benefit is 15 percent and for Head Start students is 25
percent. In other words, for each ESOL/FARMS risk group, more students in full-day
kindergarten met the benchmark than their peers in half-day kindergarten.
More detail on the percentages of students who met benchmark on four of four
foundational skills by various demographic groups is in appendix Table A-1 for children
with Head Start and in appendix Table A-2 for children who did not attend Head Start.
These overall percentages are not weighted.
The percentages of children who met
benchmark on four of four in Figures 2 and 3 are taken from Tables A-1 and A-2 in
Appendix 3.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 31
There are several ways to examine the full-day kindergarten benefit. Figures 2
and 3 are particularly helpful in illuminating the benefit to non-Head Start students,
because of the heterogeneous nature of this group; to truly see the full-day kindergarten
effect, it is necessary to examine the benefit broken down by racial/ethnic and risk
groups.
Table A-2 in Appendix 3 presents another way to examine the full-day
kindergarten benefit. This table contains unweighted percentages of kindergarteners that
met the benchmark on four of four foundational skills. From this table, the benefit of
full-day kindergarten for all students when compared to HDK +17 appears to be 2 percent
(obtained by subtracting 56% from 58%) and 3 percent (58%-55%) when compared to
HDK +22. However, referring back to Figures 2 and 3, every full-day kindergarten
benefit is at least 3 percent and the average full-day kindergarten benefit across groups
ranges from 9 percent to 19 percent. When differences in the mix of racial/ethnic groups
and in ESOL/FARMS groups across schools are accounted for in the multiple analysis of
variance, the true statistical full-day kindergarten benefit for Head Start students is
obtained. The full-day kindergarten benefit is 19 percent when compared to HDK +17
schools and 32 percent when compared to HDK +22. For non-Head Start students, the
statistical full-day kindergarten benefit is 13 percent when compared to HDK +17 and 13
percent when compared to HDK +22 (see Table A-1 in Appendix 3). In short, in year
one of the kindergarten initiative, more students in full-day kindergarten met the
benchmark than their peers in half-day kindergarten.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 32
Results for Kindergarten Reading Performance, Cohort 2, Kindergarten Initiative Year 2
The findings presented in the previous section of this report found a full-day
kindergarten benefit, for a variety of students, in year one of the Kindergarten initiative.
This section will examine whether there was a full day kindergarten benefit for the
students in kindergarten in year two of the initiative. This analysis again examined the
percentage of kindergarten students who met benchmark on four out of four foundational
reading skills. In year two, there are two comparisons that examine the full-day
kindergarten benefit: 1) schools with full-day kindergarten in 2000-01 and again in
2001-02 (FDK 17) versus the 22 schools with half-day kindergarten in 2001-02 (HDK
+22) and 2) schools with full-day kindergarten for the first time in 2001-02 (FDK +17)
versus the 22 schools with half-day kindergarten in 2001-02 (HDK +22).
Performance
benchmarks
broken
down
by
racial/ethnic
groups
and
ESOL/FARMS risk groups are presented in Figures 4 and 5. As in Figures 2 and 3, the
horizontal axis for each small bar chart in Figures 4 and 5 represents the percentage of
children who met benchmark on four of four foundational skills. For example, in Figure
4, for the group of non-Head Start students who are Asian American, 68 percent of this
group in FDK 17 schools met four of four benchmarks, 87 percent of this group of
students in FDK +17 schools met all four benchmarks, and 71 percent of this group of
students in HDK +22 schools met all four benchmarks.
In Figures 4 and 5, there are numbers with a plus sign to the right of the three bars
in each small bar chart. Each of these numbers represents the difference in percentage of
students at benchmark between a group of schools with full-day kindergarten and the
group of schools with half-day kindergarten.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 33
Figure 4.
Average Full-day Kindergarten Benefit for Cohort 2 Students by Racial/Ethnic Groups
and Participation in Head Start
HEAD START
NON-HEAD START
BENEFIT
BENEFIT
ASIAN AMERICAN
ASIAN AMERICAN
-3
68
87
76
+16
71
0
25
50
75
100
0
25
50
+5
76
50
+14
68
+15
+23
45
75
100
0
WHITE
25
50
75
100
WHITE
81
+6
82
+7
+8
63
25
50
75
55
100
0
HISPANIC
25
50
75
100
HISPANIC
+25
63
62
38
50
+17
57
+21
59
25
+23
78
75
0
100
59
61
0
75
AFRICAN AMERICAN
66
25
+17
50
AFRICAN AMERICAN
0
+26
67
+22
40
75
100
0
25
50
75
100
Average Benefit for Head Start = 19%
Average Benefit for Non-Head Start = 12%
SCHOOL GROUPS
FDK17
Office of Shared Accountability
FDK+17
HDK22
Page 34
Figure 5.
Average Full-day Kindergarten Benefit for Cohort 2 Students by Risk Groups and
Participation in Head Start
HEAD START
NON-HEAD START
BENEFIT
BENEFIT
NOT ESOL / NOT FARMS
NOT ESOL / NOT FARMS
+4
77
86
77
+13
73
0
25
50
75
100
0
25
50
75
100
FARMS ONLY
70
65
+22
65
25
50
+20
70
+17
48
+25
45
75
100
0
FARMS & ESOL
25
50
75
100
FARMS & ESOL
41
+16
47
+31
36
+9
40
+26
10
0
+22
55
FARMS ONLY
0
+10
65
31
25
50
75
100
0
25
50
75
100
Average Benefit for Head Start = 17%
Average Benefit for Non-Head Start = 19%
SCHOOL GROUPS
FDK17
Office of Shared Accountability
FDK+17
HDK22
Page 35
The top number equals the difference in percentage of students at benchmark between
FDK 17 and HDK +22.
In Figure 4, for non-Head Start students who are Asian
American, this difference is -3. It means that, among Asian American students who
attended Head Start, 3 percent less in FDK 17 schools, than in HDK +22 schools, met the
benchmark. This negative difference indicates a negative full-day kindergarten benefit.
The bottom number in the benefit column equals the difference in percentage of students
at benchmark between FDK +17 schools and HDK +22 schools. For non-Head Start
students who are Asian American, this difference is +16, indicating that 16 percent more
of these students in FDK 17 schools, than in HDK +22 schools, met the four benchmarks.
Again, this positive number represents a full-day kindergarten benefit. Except for the first
comparison noted, all other comparisons in Figure 4 indicate a positive full-day
kindergarten benefit. There is a full-day kindergarten benefit for each racial group
among both non-Head Start and Head Start students, and for comparisons between each
set of schools with full-day kindergarten and the set of schools with half-day
kindergarten.
Figure 5 shows differences in percentages of students meeting the benchmark on
four of four foundational skills broken down by ESOL/FARMS risk groups. For each of
the three risk groups, for both students with and without Head Start, there is a full-day
kindergarten benefit (as indicated by a positive difference).
More detail on the percentages of students who met benchmark on four of four
foundational skills by the various demographic groups in Cohort 2 is presented in Table
A-3 for children with Head Start and in appendix Table A-4 for children who did not
attend Head Start. These overall percentages are not weighted. The percentages of
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 36
children who met benchmark on four of four in Figures 4 and 5 are taken from Tables A3 and A-4, which are presented in Appendix 3.
Although the size of the full-day kindergarten benefit varies across racial groups
(see Figure 4) and across ESOL/FARMS groups (see Figure 5), these differences are not
statistically significant. This means that a full day-K benefit exists for every racial/ethnic
group, and every ESOL/FARMS groups and that there is no statistical evidence that this
benefit helps any one racial/ethnic group more than another or any one ESOL/FARMS
group more than another. For non-Head Start students, the average benefit across the
four racial/ethnic groups and all comparisons of full-day versus half-day is 12 percent
and for Head Start students the average benefit is 9 percent (see Figure 4). For non-Head
Start students, the average benefit across the three ESOL/FARMS groups and all
comparisons of full-day versus half-day is 19 percent and for Head Start students the
average benefit is 17 percent (see Figure 5).
In summary, for all racial/ethnic groups and for all ESOL/FARMS groups in year
two of the kindergarten initiative, more students in full-day kindergarten met the
benchmark than their peers in half-day kindergarten.
For Head Start students, the
statistical full-day kindergarten benefit is 18 percent for students in schools in their
second year of full-day kindergarten (FDK 17) and 22 percent for students in schools in
their first year of full-day kindergarten (FDK +17). For Non-Head Start students, the
statistical benefit is 19 percent for students in schools in their second year of full-day
kindergarten (FDK 17) and 18 percent for students in schools in their first year of fullday kindergarten (FDK +17) (see Table A-2 in Appendix 3).
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 37
Results for Grade 1 Reading Performance, Cohort 1 Kindergarten Initiative Students
The previous two sections of this report presented evidence of a full-day
kindergarten benefit, for a variety of students, in both year one and year two of the
Kindergarten initiative.
These results were based on benchmark performance on
kindergarten foundational skills.
This section will examine whether the full-day
kindergarten benefit continues into Grade 1. Specifically, the analysis examined the
percentage of students who met the Grade 1 proficiency benchmark (this benchmark for
text reading and comprehension is explained in detail in the first section of the report).
This analysis includes only students who were in kindergarten in the first year of the
initiative and had a valid reading assessment at the end of Grade 1, which was in spring
2002.
For Grade 1 results, there are two comparisons that examine the full-day
kindergarten benefit. The first is the 17 schools with full-day kindergarten in 2000-01
(FDK 17) versus 17 schools with half-day kindergarten in 2000-01 (HDK +17) and fullday kindergarten in 2001-02 (FDK +17). The second comparison is the 17 schools with
full-day kindergarten in 2000-01 (FDK 17) versus the 22 schools with half-day
kindergarten in 2000-01 (HDK +22) and half-day kindergarten again in 2001-02 (HDK
+22).
The percent of students achieving benchmark performance levels broken down by
racial/ethnic groups and ESOL/FARMS risk groups are presented in Figures 6 and 7.
(There were too few white students in Head Start to include in Figure 6.) The horizontal
axis for each small bar chart in Figures 6 and 7 represents the percentage of children who
met the Grade 1 reading proficiency benchmark.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 38
Figure 6.
Average Full-day Kindergarten Benefit for Cohort 1 Progressing into Grade 1 by
Racial/Ethnic Groups and Participation in Head Start
NON-HEAD START
HEAD START
BENEFIT
BENEFIT
ASIAN AMERICAN
ASIAN AMERICAN
63
66
25
50
-9
65
68
0
54
-3
-5
75
53
+1
100
0
25
50
75
100
AFRICAN AMERICAN
AFRICAN AMERICAN
57
41
+8
49
-1
42
58
-1
37
0
25
50
75
+4
100
0
25
50
75
100
WHITE
WHITE
72
71
0
25
50
52
+4
68
+1
75
44
+8
100
0
25
50
75
100
HISPANIC
HISPANIC
39
40
0
25
38
+7
32
50
29
+9
30
+8
-1
75
100
0
Average Benefit compared to HDK+17=4%
No Benefit compared to HDK22
25
50
75
100
Average Benefit for Head Start = 3%
SCHOOL GROUPS
FDK17
Office of Shared Accountability
HDK+17
HDK22
Page 39
Figure 7.
Average Full-day Kindergarten Benefit for Cohort 1 Progressing into Grade 1 by Risk
Groups and Participation in Head Start
HEAD START
NON-HEAD START
BENEFIT
BENEFIT
NOT ESOL / NOT FARMS
NOT ESOL / NOT FARMS
68
54
+3
65
70
0
25
50
75
40
-2
100
0
FARMS ONLY
25
48
+10
47
50
75
41
100
0
25
50
+7
75
100
FARMS & ESOL
23
17
+4
13
15
25
+10
38
+7
FARMS & ESOL
0
75
FARMS ONLY
44
25
+14
50
54
0
+4
50
17
+2
50
75
+11
12
0
100
Average Benefit compared to HDK+17=6%
No Benefit compared to HDK22
25
+6
50
75
100
Average Benefit for Head Start = 9%
SCHOOL GROUPS
FDK17
Office of Shared Accountability
HDK+17
HDK22
Page 40
For example, in Figure 6, for the group of non-Head Start students who are Asian
American, 63 percent of this group in FDK 17 schools met the Grade 1 benchmark, 66
percent of this group of students in HDK +17 schools met the Grade 1 benchmark, and 68
percent of this group of students in HDK +22 schools met the Grade 1 benchmark.
In Figures 6 and 7, there are numbers with a plus sign to the right of the three bars
in each small bar chart. Each of these numbers represents the difference in percentage of
students at benchmark between the group of schools with full-day kindergarten and one
of the group of schools with half-day kindergarten. The top number equals the difference
in percentage of students at benchmark between FDK 17 and HDK +17. In Figure 6, for
non-Head Start students who are Asian American, this difference is -3. It means that,
among Asian American students who attended Head Start, 3 percent fewer in FDK 17
schools, than in HDK +17 schools, met the benchmark. This negative number represents
the lack of a full-day kindergarten benefit. Three of the 12 comparisons show a small
negative full-day kindergarten benefit. The bottom number in the benefit column equals
the difference in percentage of students at benchmark between FDK 17 schools and HDK
+22 schools. For non-Head Start students who are Asian American, this difference is -1,
indicating that 1 percent fewer of these students in FDK 17 schools, than in HDK +22
schools, met the Grade 1 benchmark.
Among the Head Start students, there is a full-day kindergarten benefit for each
racial group and for comparisons between the set of schools with full-day kindergarten
and each set of schools with half-day kindergarten (see Figure 6). However, for nonHead Start students there is a full day kindergarten benefit only for comparisons between
FDK 17 schools and HDK +17 schools.
Office of Shared Accountability
For non-Head Start students, there is no
Page 41
statistically significant difference in the percentage that reach Grade 1 benchmark
between students in FDK 17 and students in HDK +22.
Figure 7 shows differences in percentages of students meeting the Grade 1
benchmark broken down by ESOL/FARMS risk groups. As in the comparisons across
the four racial/ethnic groups, among the Head Start students, there is a full-day
kindergarten benefit for each racial group and for comparisons between the set of schools
with full-day kindergarten and each set of schools with half-day kindergarten. However,
for non-Head Start students there is a full day kindergarten benefit only for comparisons
between FDK 17 schools and HDK +17 schools. For non-Head Start students, there is no
statistically significant difference in the percentage that reach Grade 1 benchmark
between students in FDK17 and students in HDK +22.
More detail on the percentages of students who met benchmark on four of four
foundational skills by various demographic groups can be found in Table A-5 for
children with Head Start and in Table A-6 for children who did not attend Head Start.
These overall percentages are not weighted.
The percentages of children who met
benchmark on four of four in Figures 6 and 7 are taken from appendix Tables A-5 and A6 which can be found in Appendix 3.
For Head Start students, the average benefit across the four racial/ethnic groups
and all comparisons of full-day versus half-day is 3 percent and for non-Head Start
students the average benefit of 4 percent is statistically significant only in comparison to
HDK +17. For Head Start students, the average benefit across the three ESOL/FARMS
groups and all comparisons of full-day versus half-day is 9 percent and for non-Head
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 42
Start students the average benefit of 6 percent is only statistically significant in
comparison to HDK +17.
For Head Start students, the statistical full-day kindergarten benefit is 18 percent
for students in schools in their second year of full-day kindergarten (FDK 17) and 22
percent for students in schools in their first year of full-day kindergarten (FDK +17). For
Non-Head Start students, the statistical benefit is 19 percent for students in schools in
their second year of full-day kindergarten (FDK 17) and 18 percent for students in
schools in their first year of full-day kindergarten (FDK +17) (see Table A-3 in Appendix
3).
In summary, Head-Start students from full-day K outperform their half-day K
peers in Grade 1 reading benchmark performance. For non-Head Start students, the fullday kindergarten students perform as well as or better than their half-day peers by the end
of Grade 1 on the reading benchmark.
Overall Reading Performance of Grade 1 Students
The initial sample, cohort 1 of the Kindergarten Initiative, consisted of 7088
Grade 1 students who (a) had a data record for the spring 2002 administration of the
MCPS assessments and (b) were included in the kindergarten analytic sample for 200001 that was used in the report by Bridges-Cline (2001, March). Out of the initial sample,
106 students had no scores and 158 had incomplete or invalid data, making it impossible
to establish a reading level. Students classified as having incomplete data had no book
title or word reading accuracy score reported. Students classified as having invalid data
had an Upper Emergent level or higher reported with word reading accuracy of less than
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 43
90 percent or an oral comprehension score that was out of range for that specific title.
Thus, the final sample, referred to as cohort 1 in the following analysis, consisted of 6824
students.
For cohort 1, success in meeting the Grade 1 reading benchmarks was clearly
related to their reading achievement in kindergarten. As seen in Table 10, the majority of
students (76%) who achieved benchmark performance on the four foundational reading
skills measured in kindergarten met the Grade 1 reading proficiency benchmark. Again,
the Grade 1 proficiency benchmark for 2001-02 was reading Wibble-Wobble or a higher
text level with an accuracy rate of 90 percent or higher, along with a score of 2 or 3 (i.e.,
with partial or essential comprehension) on the written response. The target text has a
Reading Recovery level of 14. (see Appendix 1)
Table 10.
Performance of MCPS Cohort 1 Kindergarten Initiative Students at the End of Grade One
by Kindergarten Benchmark Performance Level
Achieved Benchmark Performance on
Foundational Reading Skills in Kindergarten
All 4 foundational skill assessments (n=4316)
3 of 4 foundational skill assessments (n = 967)
2 of 4 foundational skill assessments (n = 971)
0 or 1 of 4 foundational skill assessments (n = 253)
Met Grade 1
Reading
Proficiency
Benchmark
76%
41%
22%
8%
Number of
Students
3280
396
214
20
In the spring of 2002, at the end of Grade 1, the majority (84%) of students from
cohort 1 were reading text at the Early Fluent (35%) or Fluent level (49%). Only 2
percent were not yet on text, 3 percent were at the Early Emergent level, and 11 percent
were at the Upper Emergent level. A summary of these end of Grade 1 reading levels are
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 44
presented below in Table 10 and a detailed description of the Early Emergent through
Fluent reading levels can be found in Appendix 1.
By examining Table 11, Grade 1 reading levels by risk group, we find that the
percentage of cohort 1 Kindergarten Initiative students reading at the Early Fluent or
Fluent level varies across risk group. Ninety-one percent of the Non-ESOL/Non-FARMS
students from Cohort 1 were reading at the Early Fluent or Fluent level by the end of
Grade 1. Only 76 percent of FARMS only students, 63 percent of ESOL only students,
and a meager 51percent of ESOL and FARMS students were reading at these levels.
Table 11.
End of Grade One Reading Levels for MCPS Cohort 1 Kindergarten Initiative Students
by Risk Group
Not Yet
on Text
Early
Upper
Emergent Emergent
Early
Fluent
Fluent
Non-ESOL NonFARMS
FARMS Only
1%
1%
7%
33%
58%
At or
Above
Early
Fluent
91%
4%
5%
15%
41%
35%
76%
ESOL Only
6%
8%
23%
40%
23%
63%
ESOL & FARMS
12%
12%
25%
40%
11%
51%
All Cohort 1
Students
Number of
Students
2%
3%
11%
35%
49%
84%
148
197
721
2397
3361
3361
We see a similar phenomenon when we look at the percentage of cohort 1
students that achieved the reading proficiency benchmark by the end of Grade 1. Across
all cohort 1 students, 60 percent were able to meet the Grade 1 reading proficiency
benchmark by spring 2002. When examined by risk group, as seen in Table 12, 68
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 45
percent of Non-ESOL/Non-FARMS students from cohort 1 met the proficiency
benchmark by the end of Grade 1. Only 45 percent of FARMS only students, 42 percent
of ESOL only students, and a scant 28 percent of ESOL and FARMS students were able
to meet the reading proficiency benchmark by the end of Grade 1.
Table 12.
Percentage of MCPS Cohort 1 Kindergarten Initiative Students Achieving Reading
Benchmarks by the End of Grade One by Risk Group
Total % Number Achieving Proficiency
Benchmark (Total Number of Students)
The 17 Full-Day
Kindergarten
Schools
All Schools
including the 17
FDK Schools
60%(94)
51%(296)
69%(183)
38%(521)
71%(880)
49%(1334)
70%(3272)
38%(1314)
51%(506)
47%(561)
63%(3403)
57%(3421)
66%(372)
51%(423)
33%(45)
20%(227)
68%(4840)
45%(1053)
42%(390)
28%(540)
Race/Ethnicity
Asian American
African American
White
Hispanic
Gender
Female
Male
Risk Group
Non-ESOL / Non-FARMS
FARMS Only
ESOL Only
ESOL & FARMS
Kindergarten Program
No Head Start/Half-day Kindergarten
No Head Start/Full-day Kindergarten
53%(678)
Head Start/Half-day Kindergarten
Head Start/Full-day Kindergarten
41%(389)
Special Education
No
50%(1007)
Yes (with IEP)
27%(60)
Total
All Cohort 1 Students
49%(1067)
66%(4927)
53%(759)
39%(703)
40%(436)
61%(6388)
37%(436)
60%(6824)
Column one of Table 12 presents this same information for the cohort 1 students
who participated in full-day kindergarten. These 17 schools were the first schools to
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 46
receive the full-day kindergarten program, as they were the most impacted schools in the
county. When examined by risk group, 66 percent of Non-ESOL/Non-FARMS students
from cohort 1 met the proficiency benchmark by the end of Grade 1. Only 51 percent of
FARMS only students, 33 percent of ESOL only students, and a scant 20 percent of
ESOL and FARMS students were able to meet the reading proficiency benchmark by the
end of Grade 1.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 47
4. Did Cohorts 1 and 2 students make comparable gains during year one and year
two of the Kindergarten Initiative?
A Comparison of Cohorts 1 and 2 of the MCPS Kindergarten Initiative
Cohort 1 and cohort 2 Kindergarten Initiative students made significant progress
in the acquisition of reading skills in both year one and year two of the program. Sixtytwo percent of cohort 1 students had achieved benchmark performance levels on the letter
identification, concepts about print, word recognition, and hearing and recording sounds
foundational skill area assessments. In cohort 2, the percentage of students who achieved
benchmark performance levels on these four functional skill areas increased to 73
percent, an increase of almost 10 percent.
The percentage of students from both cohorts 1 and 2 achieving benchmark
performance in each of the four foundational skill areas in spring of both years of the
program were relatively similar, as presented in Table 13. Both record of oral language
and phonemic awareness skill area assessments were not consistently administered to
cohort 1 students, and therefore do not appear in Table 13 for analysis. Also, during year
one of this program, the year that cohort 1 students were enrolled in kindergarten, fewer
students were assessed in the word recognition and hearing and recording sounds
foundational skill areas due to the structure of the Kindergarten Decision Tree (Appendix
4). The Kindergarten Decision Tree, essentially a flow chart that assists teachers in
making decisions regarding which assessments to administer to which students, allowed
for a small number of more advanced students to be assessed in these areas. In year two
of the program (the year that cohort 2 was enrolled in kindergarten) the Decision Tree
was modified based on collaboration between DECPS and OSA to include teacher
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 48
feedback into year two program planning. As a result, more students in cohort 2 were
assessed on these two foundational skill areas, and the percentage of students achieving
benchmark performance levels on word recognition and hearing and recording sounds
showed a slight decline from year one to year two.
Table 13.
Percentage of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Students Achieving Benchmark
Performance Levels in the Six Foundational Skill Areas
Letter ID
Print Concepts
Oral Language
Phonemic Awareness
Hearing & Recording Sounds
Word Recognition
Cohort 1 (n = 7849)
Fall 2000
Spring
2001
41%
90%
20%
82%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
26%
82%
12%
85%
Cohort 2 (n = 8005)
Fall 2001 Spring 2002
51%
28%
68%
45%
23%
16%
93%
86%
87%
88%
77%
82%
When examining the achievement of benchmark performance levels in the
foundational skill areas by risk group, it should be noted that the students who are at risk
are still lagging behind those students with no risk factors present.
Upon primary
inspection of descriptive statistics across risk groups, it appears that for ESOL only
students and ESOL and FARMS students from both cohorts 1 and 2, the gap between
their performance and the performance of their peers with no risk factors present is still
great. It does appear that this gap is narrowing for the FARMS only students. The
percentage of FARMS only cohort 2 students that achieved benchmark performance
levels on the four functional skill areas is almost equal to the percentage of students that
achieved this performance level in cohort 1, in the Non-ESOL/Non-FARMS risk group.
The percentages of cohort 1 and 2 students who achieved benchmark performance on all
four foundational skill areas by risk group are presented below in Table 14.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 49
Table 14.
Percentage of MCPS Kindergarten Initiative Students Achieving Benchmark
Performance Levels on All Four of the Foundational Skill Areas By Risk Group
Non ESOL / Non FARMS
FARMS Only
ESOL Only
ESOL & FARMS
Total
Cohort 1
(n = 7849)
65%
47%
39%
32%
58%
Cohort 2
(n = 8005)
77%
60%
37%
36%
70%
To recap, the Kindergarten Initiative was designed to help all MCPS students
acquire reading skills. The curriculum and assessments that were developed for this
Initiative were done so to get every elementary school across the county one the same
page, in hope that consistent progress could be made across the county. However, since
there is an achievement gap with regard to race/ethnicity, and risk group, the
Kindergarten Initiative design included a plan for delivering maximum services (i.e. full
day kindergarten) to those schools with the most need first. The 17 schools slated to
receive full-day kindergarten during year one of the Initiative were those schools that had
the highest concentration of students who were the most academically disadvantaged and
economically deprived.
In Table A-1, in the last row, we present the total number of cohort 1 students
who attain benchmark performance levels on all four foundational skills by the end of
kindergarten. These percentages, 53 percent in the full day kindergarten schools, 38
percent in the first group of half day schools (schools slated to receive full-day
kindergarten during the 2001-02 school year), and 25 percent in the second group of halfday schools (schools slated to receive full-day kindergarten during the 2002-03 school
year). Again these phases correspond with the level of need in the schools. In the last
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 50
row of Table A-3 we present the total number of cohort 2 students who attained
benchmark performance levels on all four foundational skills by the end of kindergarten.
These percentages are 60 percent, 66 percent, and 44 percent, respectively.
As, schools slated to offer full-day kindergarten programs in 2001-02 “switched
teams” between year one and two of the kindergarten initiative (they received half-day
kindergarten during year one and full-day kindergarten during year two), we cannot
directly compare the change from year one to year two. However between year one and
two of the Kindergarten Initiative, the full-day kindergarten schools demonstrated a 7
percentage point increase in the percentage of students meeting benchmark by the end of
the school year. A 19 point increase was observed in the percentage of students meeting
benchmark by the end of the school year in the half-day schools slated to receive full-day
kindergarten during the 2002-03 school year. By doing the same calculations for the no
Head Start students portrayed in Tables A-2 and A-4, we find ten point increases in the
percentage of students meeting benchmark in both full- and half-day kindergarten. A
summary of the percentage of students meeting benchmark performance levels on all four
foundational skill area assessments across school groups and cohorts by Head Start
participation is presented in Table 15.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 51
Table 15.
Percentage of Students Meeting Benchmark Performance Levels on all Four
Foundational Skill Area Assessments Across School Groups and Cohorts by Head Start
Participation
School
Group
Cohort 1
Cohort 2
Increase in
Percentage
of Students
Meeting
Benchmark
17
Phase A
53%
60%
Head Start
+17
Phase B
38%
66%
+22
Phase C
25%
44%
17
Phase A
58%
68%
7%
28%
19%
10%
Non-Head Start
+17
+22
Phase B
Phase C
56%
55%
76%
65%
10%
10%
As seen in Table 15, both cohort 1 and cohort 2 students made gains during both
years of the kindergarten initiative. Thus providing evidence of an “experience effect” in
year two of the program. With the additional year of professional development that was
provided to our teachers between year one and year two of the initiative, increased
familiarity with the revised curriculum and the accompanying assessments, and
reassurance from findings presented in the year one report that our students were making
great progress in the acquisition of reading skills, our cohort 2 students out performed our
cohort 1 students. Future reports will attempt to provide additional evidence of this
experience effect in subsequent years of the Kindergarten Initiative.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 52
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. It is recommended that funding for the Kindergarten Initiative continue into the
2003-04 school year and beyond. Results from the year one and year two reports on the
Kindergarten Initiative show gains in student achievement each year from fall to spring
as well as from year one to year two of the program. Students in Cohort 2, during year
two of the program, made greater gains than those made by Cohort 1 students during year
one of the program. These increases in performance can most likely be attributed to the
experience effect as teachers received an additional year of professional development and
gained increased familiarity with the revised curriculum and accompanying assessments.
Continuing the Kindergarten Initiative and tracking cohorts of students through the
program will tremendously benefit our students. Data from the longitudinal study would
assist us in understanding student achievement as well as guiding the adjustment of our
curriculum and our assessments to best serve our students’ educational needs.
2. Individual student performance must be closely monitored to identify strengths
and weaknesses, thus allowing the opportunity to provide appropriate instructional
and developmental interventions to maximize achievement. If we do not use the
findings of this report, and the reports that follow, this program will not provide the
maximum benefit to our students, and our community. To ensure the perpetuation of a
quality instructional program, we should look to student performance to help us learn
where to better apply our resources and energy in an attempt to help every student
succeed.
As a result of the findings presented in this report, it is clear that we must examine
the ESOL services that we are currently providing to our second language-learning
students. Services must be refined so that we can help this group of students achieve at
the same levels as their peers. As seen in Table 27, the foundational skill areas where
ESOL only students consistently under perform their English speaking peers all center
around oral language. These finding suggests that the services that ESOL only students
are receiving are not adequately assisting these students to meet our performance
benchmarks.
An evaluation of the ESOL program should be conducted to examine the type of
services provided, the consistency of those services across the county, and the type of
professional development ESOL staff are receiving. Additionally, little system-wide data
are gathered regarding those students who speak English as a second language, but
receive no services from MCPS.
3. To ensure that the Kindergarten Initiative continues to benefit additional cohorts
of kindergarten students who enter MCPS in the 2003-04 school year and beyond, it
is imperative to continue offering professional development to our teachers. Rolling
out full-day kindergarten programs in 13 additional schools each year from now until
2007 will mean the addition of many new teachers who have not received any training
directly relating to the revised kindergarten curriculum and the accompanying
assessments. To continue to see the experience effect that we have detected in this
report, it is critical for all new teachers to understand the curriculum, the benchmarks,
and student need as well as those teachers who have been with us since 2000-01. We
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 53
must continue to offer professional development to our seasoned professionals as well as
the new recruits to let strategies and best practices be exchanged between the people who
know best – our teachers. Findings from the reports detailing the progress of our
kindergarteners in the acquisition of reading skills should inform the type of professional
development offered. Teachers experienced in delivering full-day kindergarten program
instruction should assist those teachers in subsequent years so that the best uses of the
entire day for kindergarten students can be shared. In the schools that are not
demonstrating benefits consistent with other schools across the county, additional
implementation training could be offered during professional development sessions to
establish continued success for all MCPS kindergarten students.
4. Additional funding for quality preschool programs, such as Head Start, should
be sought to continue helping our youngest and most high risk students. It is clear
that our students with risk characteristics are in greater need than their peers without
these factors present. The high risk students who made the greatest gains received the
maximum “dose” of services that our county provided. Those high risk students who
participated in both Head Start and full-day kindergarten had the greatest gains
throughout the school year in both years one and two of this program. It is essential that
we secure additional funding and resources to help those in the greatest need so that they
can meet the high standards that we have set for all our students.
5. This report should be presented to various stakeholders involved both directly
and indirectly with the Kindergarten Initiative. Various community partners and
stakeholders should be made aware of the merits of this program, and the progress that
our students are demonstrating. This report should be presented to every member of our
community who has a stake in the children that we are educating, from the School Board
to the parents of our students.
This report, and the findings presented therein, should serve as a catalyst for
collaboration between various stakeholders and offices within MCPS. Any crossfunctional team that deals with issues surrounding early childhood education, narrowing
the gap, ESOL, Title I, special education, or other related issues presented in this report,
should use the findings to influence and guide their work. ESOL program personnel
should have the opportunity to examine these findings and begin creating ways for our
students learning English as a second language to make reading progress comparable to
that of their MCPS peers.
6. It is recommended that MCPS continue conducting research that monitors the
acquisition of reading skills in Kindergarten and Grade 1. The findings presented in
this report explored the full day kindergarten benefit for both Head Start and non-Head
Start students. The statistical analysis presented herein did not test for any difference in
the full day Kindergarten benefit that may exist between Head Start and non-Head Start
students These data should be explored further with alternate models that will continue to
inform us on the progress our students are making in kindergarten and beyond.
This report spent considerable amounts of time discussing school groups, racial
ethnic groups, and risk groups, paying little attention to special education classification,
gender, and other demographic variables. Future research should include examination of
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 54
the reading performance of our special education students by different disability
classifications. Additional statistical analyses that compare differences between special
education students and those without IEPs, including analysis of progress during the
school year and of foundational reading skills that were given to selected Grade 1
students, should be conducted in future studies. The current analyses do allow for some
descriptive statements, which are summarized in Appendix 3 following Tables A-1
through A-10.
Additional topics, such as the reading performance of cohort 1 students as they
enter into grade two, should also be explored in subsequent research.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 55
References
Bridges-Cline, F. (2001, August). Kindergarten student progress: Acquisition of
reading skills year 1 of the MCPS kindergarten initiative 2000-2001. Rockville, MD:
Montgomery County Public Schools, Office of Shared Accountability.
Bridges-Cline, F. (2001, March). Early reading skills of kindergarten children in
the montgomery county public schools. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public
Schools, Office of Shared Accountability.
Bridges-Cline, F. (2002). Draft report on MCPS assessment PK-2 reading.
Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools, Office of Shared Accountability.
Entwisle, D.R., Alexander, K.L., Cadigan, D., & Pallas, A.M. (1987).
Kindergarten experience: Cognitive effects or socialization? American Educational
Research Journal, 24, 337-364.
Gordon, E.W., & Yowell, C. (1994). Educational reforms for students at risk:
Cultural dissonance as a risk factor in the development of students. In R.J. Rossi(Ed.),
Educational reforms and students at risk. New York: Teachers College Press.
Montgomery County Public Schools. (1999, November). Raising the bar and
closing the gap because all children matter. Rockville, MD: Board of Education.
Montgomery Co. Public Schools Head Start Information Brochure
http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/earlychi/Head%20Start%20Brochure.html
11:43 am 9-12-02
Natriello, G., McDill, E.L., & Pallas, A.M. (1990). Schooling disadvantaged
children: Racing against catastrophe. New York: Teachers College Press.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 170th Cong., 1st Sess. (January 3, 2001)
Smith, M.S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Educational equality: 1966 and now. In D.A.
Verstegen & J.G. Ward (Eds.), Spheres of justice in education: The 1990 american
education finance association yearbook. New York: Harper Business.
White, T.G. (2002). First grade reading achievement of students who experienced
full-day or half-day kindergarten: Year 1. Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public
Schools, Office of Shared Accountability.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 56
APPENDICES
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 57
Appendix 1. Reading/Language Arts GLOSSARY OF TERMS
(Pre-K – Grade 2)
Foundational Reading Skills
Oral Language
the ability to speak clearly
and use a wide variety of
words to convey ideas
effectively
Letter Knowledge
the ability to identify
alphabet letters
Assessment Tool: Record of Oral Language
Measures a student’s control of oral language and
grammatical structures
Assessment Tool : Letter Identification
Assesses a student’s ability to name upper and lower
case letters
Print Concepts
the ability to demonstrate
book handling skills and
print awareness concepts
Phonemic Awareness
the ability to hear the distinct
sounds in spoken words
Assessment Tool: Concepts About Print
Assesses a student’s understanding of how printed
language works in books (i.e., directional
movement, one to one matching, book conventions,
such as front and back of the book, etc.)
Assessment Tool: Phonemic Awareness
Measures a student’s ability to separately articulate
and manipulate the sounds of a spoken word (i.e.,
beginning sounds, rhyming)
Phonics
the ability to use knowledge
of letter/sound relationships
to decode and write words
Assessment Tool:
Hearing and Recording
Sounds
Assesses a student’s ability to associate and write
letters for sounds heard in words in a dictated
sentence
Word Knowledge
the ability to identify high
frequency words in print and
decode unknown words
Assessment Tool: Word Recognition
Assesses a student’s ability to read basic sight words
(e.g., is, the, look, here)
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 59
Text Reading
Reading proficiency is determined by assessing one’s oral reading accuracy, fluency, and
comprehension of benchmark level texts.
Oral Reading/Fluency
the ability to fluently and
accurately read text aloud
Comprehension
the ability to gain meaning
from reading text
Assessment Tool: Running Records
Assesses a student’s oral reading accuracy and fluency by
the teacher checking and recording each word as a student
reads a book or passage
Assessment Tool: Oral Retell
Assesses a student’s ability to recall and tell the details of
text read aloud
Assessment Tool: Oral Comprehension Questions
Assesses a student’s ability to orally express an
understanding of explicit and implicit details from text read
Assessment Tool: Written Response to Reading
Assesses a student’s ability to demonstrate in writing an
understanding of explicit and implicit details from text read
Benchmark Levels
~target reading levels at the end of Kindergarten, Grade 1, and Grade 2
READING READY TEXT
Reading Ready Texts typically have large print and spacing,
Book Levels 1-2
repetition of very simple one or two sentence patterns, familiar content that
children can relate to, and simple pictures that support the text. Children use
pictures and memory for language to repeat the book pattern, point word by
word, and move from left to right across print.
KINDERGARTEN BENCHMARK
Book Level 3 Early Emergent Texts typically have large print and spacing, a simple
story line with familiar content, introduction of dialogue, and supportive
illustrations. Children learn to read high frequency sight words, while reading
simple stories for meaning.
GRADE 1 BENCHMARK
Book Level 16
Early Fluent Texts are significantly longer, and sentence patterns
are more complex. Themes are varied and illustrations are less helpful. More
informational text is introduced. Children have an ever-expanding sight word
vocabulary, are able to decode unknown words, and are able to comprehend
more sophisticated stories.
GRADE 2 BENCHMARK
Book Level MFluent Texts have more print per page, few illustrations, and may take
several days or more to complete. Language structure is far more
sophisticated and vocabulary is more challenging. Automatic recognition of a
larger number of words, beyond basic sight words, is needed. Children read a
greater variety of genre, usually silently, with more varied plots and complex
ideas and topics.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 60
Primary Reading Stages and Levels
The numerical levels that are indicated represent Reading Recovery levels, 1-20. These
levels are appropriate for kindergarten through Grade 2. The alphabetical leveling
correlates to the Fountas and Pinnell book leveling found on page 26 of Matching Texts
to Readers. Therefore, the levels in kindergarten through Grade 2 receive dual
representation of both numerals and alphabet letters.
Grade
Reading Stage
Kindergarten
Early
Emergent
Reading Level
Levels 1-2
(A,B)
Reading Ready
Level 3
*Benchmark
(Level 3)
(C )
Grade 1
Upper
Emergent
Early Fluent
Grade 2
Fluent
Levels 4-9
(D,E,F)
Levels 10-16
(G,H,I)
*Benchmark
(Level 16)
Levels 17-20 +
(J,K,L,M)
*Benchmark
(Level M)
* End of Year Grade Level Benchmark Target
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 61
Appendix 2.MANOVA SPSS Output
Manova - Cohort 1 Kindergarten - Head Start Only
manova skils4 by fdk_hs1(1,3) race(2,5) kesolfrm(0,2)
/ CONTRAST(fdk_hs1)=SIMPLE(1)/ contrast(race) = simple(3) /
contrast(KESOLFRM) = simple(1)
/ print= param(est EFSIZE ) signif(brief efsize)
/analysis=skils4 / des=constant fdk_hs1 RACE kesolfrm .
The default error term in MANOVA has been changed from WITHIN CELLS to
WITHIN+RESIDUAL. Note that these are the same for all full factorial
designs.
* * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e * * * * * *
1106 cases accepted.
0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values.
17225 cases rejected because of missing data.
35 non-empty cells.
1 design will be processed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e -- design
1 * * *
* * *
Order of Variables for Analysis
Variates
SKILS4
'% of Students with all 4 Foundational Skills'
1 Dependent Variable
0 Covariates
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:
(A) fdk_hs1 'Contrast FDK with 2 HDK Groups'
(B) Race
'Contrast White with Asian; African Am; Hispanic'
(C) kesolfrm 'Contrast NonESOL/NonFARMS with Farms-only; ESOL + FARMS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e -- design
1 * * *
Tests of Significance for SKILS4 using UNIQUE sums of squares
Source of Variation
SS
DF
MS
F Sig of F
WITHIN+RESIDUAL
CONSTANT
FDK_HS1
RACE
KESOLFRM
2436283.93
885950.82
150555.38
49718.04
51048.90
1098
2218.84
1 885950.82
2 75277.69
3 16572.68
2 25524.45
399.29
33.93
7.47
11.50
.000
.000
.000
.000
(Corrected Model)
230922.22
7 32988.89
14.87
.000
(Corrected Total)
2667206.15
1105
2413.76
R-Squared =
.087
Adjusted R-Squared = .081
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 62
Effect Size Measures
Source of Variation
Partial
ETA Sqd
FDK_HS1
RACE
KESOLFRM
.058
.020
.021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Estimates for SKILS4
--- Individual univariate .9500 confidence intervals
CONSTANT
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
t-Value
41.7144290
.26667
2.08759
19.98214
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
t-Value
1
45.81054
Sig. t Lower -95%
.00000
CL-
37.61832
FDK_HS1
(HDK17-FDK17)2
-18.233067
-11.47262
.02487
(HDK22-FDK17)3
-29.150644
-21.91015
.05378
Sig. t Lower -95%
CL-
3.44547
-5.29190
.00000
-24.99351
3.69012
-7.89964
.00000
-36.39113
RACE
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
(Asian -Wht.)4
19.4410476
33.80019
.00639
(Af.Am.-Wht.)5
-4.6851967
6.55949
.00061
(Hisp. -Wht.)6
-5.7956668
5.52938
.00092
t-Value
Sig. t Lower -95%
CL-
7.31815
2.65655
.00801
5.08191
5.73087
-.81754
.41380
-15.92988
5.77182
-1.00413
.31554
-17.12071
KESOLFRM
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
(FARMS-None) 7
-1.4412622
6.36543
.00012
(ESOL/FARMS- 8
-18.254557
-8.87497
.01311
None)
Office of Shared Accountability
t-Value
Sig. t Lower -95%
CL-
3.97869
-.36225
.71724
-9.24795
4.78031
-3.81869
.00014
-27.63414
Page 63
Manova Cohort 1 Kindergarten - NonHead Start Group
manova skils4 by fdk_nhs1(1,3) race(2,5) kesolfrm(0,2)
/ CONTRAST(fdk_nhs1)=SIMPLE(1)/ contrast(race) = simple(3) /
contrast(KESOLFRM) = simple(1)
/ print= param(est EFSIZE ) signif(brief efsize)
/analysis=skils4 / des=constant fdk_nhs1 race kesolfrm
/analysis=skils4 / des=constant fdk_nhs1 race kesolfrm fdk_nhs1 by
kesolfrm.
The default error term in MANOVA has been changed from WITHIN CELLS to
WITHIN+RESIDUAL. Note that these are the same for all full factorial
designs.
* * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e * * * * * *
3177 cases accepted.
0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values.
15154 cases rejected because of missing data.
36 non-empty cells.
2 designs will be processed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e -- design
1 * * *
* * *
SKILS4
'% of Students with all 4 Foundational Skills'
1 Dependent Variable
0 Covariates
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:
(A) fdk_nhs1'Contrast FDK with 2 HDK Groups'
(B) Race
'Contrast White with Asian; African Am; Hispanic'
(C) kesolfrm 'Contrast NonESOL/NonFARMS with Farms-only; ESOL + FARMS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e -- design
1 * * *
* * *
Tests of Significance for SKILS4 using UNIQUE sums of squares
Source of Variation
SS
DF
MS
F Sig of F
WITHIN+RESIDUAL
CONSTANT
FDK_NHS1
RACE
KESOLFRM
7383810.03
3075538.94
66308.90
118133.88
166526.52
3169
2330.01
1 3075538.9
2 33154.45
3 39377.96
2 83263.26
(Corrected Model)
(Corrected Total)
520949.18
7904759.21
7
3176
R-Squared =
Adjusted R-Squared =
-
74421.31
2488.90
1319.97
14.23
16.90
35.74
.000
.000
.000
.000
31.94
.000
.066
.064
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 64
-
Effect Size Measures
Partial
Source of Variation
ETA Sqd
FDK_NHS1
RACE
KESOLFRM
.009
.016
.022
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Estimates for SKILS4
--- Individual univariate .9500 confidence intervals
CONSTANT
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
t-Value
46.2687548
.29405
1.27352
36.33135
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
t-Value
1
48.76577
Sig. t Lower -95%
.00000
CL-
43.77174
FDK_NHS1
(HDK17-FDK17) 2
-9.5627274
14.03890
-5.08655
.00551
(HDK22-FDK17) 3
-11.169062
15.48027
-6.85785
.00808
Sig. t Lower -95%
2.28293
-4.18879
.00003
-
2.19880
-5.07962
.00000
-
CL-
RACE
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
(Asian-Wht)
4
.661989099
4.98213
6.30610
.00002
(Af.Am.-Wht) 5
-11.276706
15.66607
-6.88734
.00794
(Hisp-Wht)
6
-16.075192
21.41485 -10.73554
.01088
t-Value
Sig. t Lower -95%
2.87860
.22997
.81813
2.23866
-5.03726
.00000
-
2.72332
-5.90278
.00000
-
CL-
-
KESOLFRM
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
(FARMS-None) 7
-13.100442
17.88696
-8.31393
.00901
(ESOL/FARMS- 8
-26.168920
32.68948 -19.64836
.01916
None)
Office of Shared Accountability
t-Value
Sig. t Lower -95%
2.44121
-5.36637
.00000
-
3.32561
-7.86891
.00000
-
CL-
Page 65
Manova Cohort 2 Kindergarten - Head Start Groups Only
manova skils4 by fdkhs2(1,3) race(2,5) kesolfrm(0,2)
/ CONTRAST(fdkhs2)=SIMPLE(3)/ contrast(race) = simple(3)
/ contrast(KESOLFRM) = simple(1)
/ print= param(est EFSIZE ) signif(brief efsize)
/analysis=skils4 / des=constant fdkhs2 race kesolfrm .
The default error term in MANOVA has been changed from WITHIN CELLS to
WITHIN+RESIDUAL. Note that these are the same for all full factorial
designs.
* * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e * * * * * *
1164 cases accepted.
0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values.
17167 cases rejected because of missing data.
34 non-empty cells.
1 design will be processed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e -- design
1 * * *
SKILS4
'% of Students with all 4 Foundational Skills'
1 Dependent Variable
0 Covariates
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:
(A) fdkhs2 'Contrast 2 FDK groups with 1 HDK Group'
(B) Race
'Contrast White with Asian; African Am; Hispanic'
(C) kesolfrm 'Contrast NonESOL/NonFARMS with Farms-only; ESOL + FARMS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e -- design
1 * * *
Tests of Significance for SKILS4 using UNIQUE sums of squares
Source of Variation
SS
DF
MS
F Sig of F
WITHIN+RESIDUAL
CONSTANT
FDKHS2
RACE
KESOLFRM
2665122.60
1603023.84
72546.57
24683.46
94874.65
1156
2305.47
1 1603023.8
2 36273.29
3
8227.82
2 47437.33
(Corrected Model)
(Corrected Total)
173734.79
2838857.39
7
1163
R-Squared =
Adjusted R-Squared =
24819.26
2440.98
695.31
15.73
3.57
20.58
.000
.000
.014
.000
10.77
.000
.061
.056
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Effect Size Measures
Partial
Source of Variation
ETA Sqd
FDKHS2
RACE
KESOLFRM
Office of Shared Accountability
.026
.009
.034
Page 66
Estimates for SKILS4
--- Individual univariate .9500 confidence intervals
CONSTANT
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
t-Value
56.8092236
.37558
2.15441
26.36880
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
t-Value
1
61.03622
Sig. t Lower -95%
.00000
CL-
52.58223
FDKHS2
(FDK17a-HDK22)2
17.5397652
10.31309
24.76644
.01924
(FDK17b-HDK22)3
20.5544172
12.87101
28.23782
.02328
Sig. t Lower -95%
3.68329
4.76199
.00000
3.91607
5.24873
.00000
CL-
RACE
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
(Asian-Wht)
4
6.44110595
7.58470
20.46691
.00070
(Af.Am.-Wht) 5
-9.6833939
21.24029
1.87350
.00233
(Hisp-Wht)
6
-3.4979429
15.03720
8.04132
.00031
t-Value
Sig. t Lower -95%
7.14866
.90102
.36776
5.89031
-1.64395
.10046
-
5.88132
-.59475
.55212
-
CL-
-
KESOLFRM
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
t-Value
Sig. t Lower -95%
CL-
(FARMS-None) 7
-4.8530702
3.94649
-1.22972
.21905 12.59616
2.89002
.00131
(ESOL/FARMS- 8
-28.087424
4.97163
-5.64954
.00000 37.84185 -18.33300
.02687
None)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 67
Manova Cohort 2 Kindergarten - Non-Head Start Groups
manova skils4 by fdknhs2(1,3) race(2,5) kesolfrm(0,2)
/ CONTRAST(fdknhs2)=SIMPLE(3)/ contrast(race) = simple(3)
/ contrast(KESOLFRM) = simple(1)
/ print= param(est EFSIZE ) signif(brief efsize)
/analysis=skils4 / des=constant fdknhs2 race kesolfrm .
The default error term in MANOVA has been changed from WITHIN CELLS to
WITHIN+RESIDUAL. Note that these are the same for all full factorial
designs.
* * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e * * * * * *
2057 cases accepted.
0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values.
16274 cases rejected because of missing data.
35 non-empty cells.
1 design will be processed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e -- design
1 * * *
* * *
Order of Variables for Analysis
SKILS4
'% of Students with all 4 Foundational Skills'
1 Dependent Variable
0 Covariates
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:
(A) fdknhs2 'Contrast 2 FDK groups with 1 HDK Group'
(B) Race
'Contrast White with Asian; African Am; Hispanic'
(C) kesolfrm 'Contrast NonESOL/NonFARMS with Farms-only; ESOL + FARMS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e -- design
1 * * *
* * *
Tests of Significance for SKILS4 using UNIQUE sums of squares
Source of Variation
SS
DF
MS
F Sig of F
WITHIN+RESIDUAL
CONSTANT
FDKNHS2
RACE
KESOLFRM
4384312.71
3748409.17
74314.51
62449.04
227819.21
2049
2139.73
1 3748409.2
2 37157.25
3 20816.35
2 113909.60
(Corrected Model)
(Corrected Total)
402473.87
4786786.58
7
2056
R-Squared =
Adjusted R-Squared =
57496.27
2328.20
1751.81
17.37
9.73
53.24
.000
.000
.000
.000
26.87
.000
.084
.081
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Effect Size Measures
Partial
Source of Variation
ETA Sqd
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 68
FDKNHS2
RACE
KESOLFRM
.017
.014
.049
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Estimates for SKILS4
--- Individual univariate .9500 confidence intervals
CONSTANT
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
t-Value
60.6425490
.46090
1.44888
41.85465
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
t-Value
1
63.48399
Sig. t Lower -95%
.00000
CL-
57.80111
FDKNHS2
(FDK17a-HDK22) 2
16.1643363
9.96370
22.36498
.01260
(FDK17b-HDK22) 3
17.6562227
10.94734
24.36511
.01283
Sig. t Lower -95%
3.16178
5.11242
.00000
3.42094
5.16122
.00000
CL-
RACE
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
(Asian-Wht)
4
2.25801491
4.80824
9.32427
.00019
(Af.Am.-Wht)
5
-13.131944
18.96934
-7.29455
.00941
(Hisp-Wht)
6
-10.892348
17.33348
-4.45122
.00534
t-Value
Sig. t Lower -95%
3.60317
.62667
.53094
2.97656
-4.41179
.00001
-
3.28441
-3.31638
.00093
-
CL-
-
KESOLFRM
Parameter
Coeff.
Upper
ETA Sq.
Std. Err.
t-Value
Sig. t Lower -95%
CL-
(FARMS-None)
7
-14.898040
3.09667
-4.81099
.00000 20.97099
-8.82509
.01117
(ESOL/FARMS8
-41.068418
3.98982 -10.29329
.00000 48.89295 -33.24389
.04917
None)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 69
Grade 1 Performance, Includes only Students in Kindergarten
2000-2001, Non-Head Start
manova gd1bench by fullold1(1,3) race(2,5) kesolfrm (0,2)
/ CONTRAST(fullold1)=SIMPLE(1)/ contrast(race) = simple(3) /
contrast(kesolfrm)
= simple(1)
/ print= cell(means)param(est EFSIZE ) signif(brief efsize)
/analysis=gd1bench/ des=constant fullold1 race kesolfrm.
The default error term in MANOVA has been changed from WITHIN CELLS to
WITHIN+RESIDUAL. Note that these are the same for all full factorial
designs.
* * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e * * * *
2054 cases accepted.
0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values.
0 cases rejected because of missing data.
35 non-empty cells.
1 designs will be processed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * *
A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e -- design
1 * * * * * *
Order of Variables for Analysis
Variates
GD1BENCH
Covariates
'% of Students at/above Text Reading Benchmark'
1 Dependent Variable
0 Covariates
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:
(A)fullold1
'Contrast FDK with 2 HDK Groups'
(B)Race
'Contrast White with Asian; African Am; Hispanic'
(C)KESOLFRM
'Contrast NonESOL/NonFARMS with Farms-only; & ESOL +
FARMS'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e -- design
1 * * *
Tests of Significance for GD1BENCH using UNIQUE sums of squares
Source of Variation
SS
DF
MS
F Sig of F
WITHIN+RESIDUAL
CONSTANT
FULLOLD1
RACE
KESOLFRM
4459786.08
2264791.85
21806.32
134773.86
118834.74
2046
2179.76
1 2264791.8
2 10903.16
3 44924.62
2 59417.37
(Corrected Model)
(Corrected Total)
493865.34
4953651.41
7
2053
70552.19
2412.88
1039.01
5.00
20.61
27.26
.000
.007
.000
.000
32.37
.000
R-Squared =
.100
Adjusted R-Squared = .097
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Effect Size Measures
Partial
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 70
Source of Variation
ETA Sqd
FULLOLD1
.005
RACE
.029
KESOLFRM
.026
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Estimates for GD1BENCH
--- Individual univariate .9500 confidence intervals
CONSTANT
Parameter
Upper
1
54.60267
Coeff.
Std. Err.
t-Value
51.4711235
1.59681
32.23368
Std. Err.
t-Value
Parameter
Sig. t Lower -95%
.00000
CL-
48.33958
ETA Sq.
1
.33679
FULLOLD1
Parameter
Upper
Coeff.
(HDK17-FDK17) 2
-3.11511
(HDK22-FDK17) 3
2.06950
Parameter
(HDK17-FDK17)
(HDK22-FDK17)
2.79493
-3.07568
.00213
-14.07751
-3.2182045
2.69626
-1.19358
.23278
-8.50591
ETA Sq.
2
3
.00460
.00070
Parameter
Upper
Coeff.
(Asian-Wht) 4
9.70321
(Af.Am.-Wht)5
9.00664
(Hisp-Wht) 6
14.59636
2.90622742
(Asian-Wht)
(Af.Am.-Wht)
(Hisp-Wht)
CL-
-8.5963134
* * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
Estimates for GD1BENCH (Cont.)
RACE
Parameter
Sig. t Lower -95%
V a r i a n c e -- design
Std. Err.
t-Value
1 * * *
Sig. t Lower -95%
CL-
3.46586
.83853
.40183
-3.89075
-14.289782
2.69393
-5.30443
.00000
-19.57292
-21.029922
3.28055
-6.41049
.00000
-27.46348
-
ETA Sq.
4
5
6
.00034
.01357
.01969
KESOLFRM
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 71
Parameter
Upper
(FARMS-None)
-1.32562
(ESOL/FARMS22.29390
None)
Parameter
(FARMS-None)
(ESOL/FARMSNone)
Coeff.
Std. Err.
t-Value
Sig. t Lower -95%
CL-
7
-7.3691590
3.08167
-2.39129
.01688
-13.41270
8
-30.365749
4.11593
-7.37762
.00000
-38.43760
-
ETA Sq.
7
8
Office of Shared Accountability
.00279
.02591
Page 72
Grade 1 Performance, Includes only Students in Kindergarten
2000-2001, Head Start
manova gd1bench by fullold1(1,3) race(2,5) kesolfrm (0,2)
/ CONTRAST(fullold1)=SIMPLE(1)/ contrast(race) = simple(3) /
contrast(kesolfrm)
= simple(1)
/ print= cell(means)param(est EFSIZE ) signif(brief efsize)
/analysis=gd1bench/ des=constant fullold1 race kesolfrm.
* * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e * * * * * *
808 cases accepted.
0 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values.
0 cases rejected because of missing data.
34 non-empty cells.
1 designs will be processed.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e -- design
Order of Variables for Analysis
Variates
1 * * *
Covariates
GD1BENCH
'% of Students at/above Text Reading Benchmark
1 Dependent Variable
0 Covariates
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:
(A)fullold1
'Contrast FDK with 2 HDK Groups'
(B)Race
'Contrast White with Asian; African Am; Hispanic'
(C)KESOLFRM
'Contrast NonESOL/NonFARMS with Farms-only; & ESOL +
FARMS'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - * * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e -- design
1 * * *
Tests of Significance for GD1BENCH using UNIQUE sums of squares
Source of Variation
SS
DF
MS
F Sig of F
WITHIN+RESIDUAL
CONSTANT
FULLOLD1
RACE
KESOLFRM
1835636.19
656622.16
14988.64
37107.34
39140.06
800
2294.55
1 656622.16
2
7494.32
3 12369.11
2 19570.03
(Corrected Model)
(Corrected Total)
86331.63
1921967.82
7
807
R-Squared =
Adjusted R-Squared =
12333.09
2381.62
286.17
3.27
5.39
8.53
.000
.039
.001
.000
5.37
.000
.045
.037
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Effect Size Measures
Partial
Source of Variation
ETA Sqd
FULLOLD1
Office of Shared Accountability
.008
Page 73
RACE
KESOLFRM
.020
.021
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Estimates for GD1BENCH
--- Individual univariate .9500 confidence intervals
CONSTANT
Parameter
Upper
1
46.64777
Coeff.
Std. Err.
t-Value
41.7976976
2.47083
16.91646
Std. Err.
t-Value
Parameter
Sig. t Lower -95%
.00000
CL-
36.94762
ETA Sq.
1
.26346
FULLOLD1
Parameter
Upper
Coeff.
(HDK17-FDK17) 2
-.84561
(HDK22-FDK17) 3
-.62730
Parameter
(HDK17-FDK17)
(HDK22-FDK17)
4.13093
-2.16764
.03048
-17.06308
-9.2429510
4.38917
-2.10585
.03553
-17.85860
ETA Sq.
2
3
.00584
.00551
Parameter
Upper
Coeff.
(Asian-Wht) 4
41.94892
(Af.Am.-Wht)5
14.60574
(Hisp-Wht) 6
14.01039
24.9584240
(Asian-Wht)
(Af.Am.-Wht)
(Hisp-Wht)
CL-
-8.9543446
* * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
Estimates for GD1BENCH (Cont.)
RACE
Parameter
Sig. t Lower -95%
V a r i a n c e -- design
Std. Err.
t-Value
1 * * *
Sig. t Lower -95%
CL-
8.65566
2.88348
.00404
7.96793
6.92210
.14708
.88310
-12.56950
.309573083 6.97976
.04435
.96463
-13.39124
1.01811750
ETA Sq.
4
5
6
.01029
.00003
.00000
KESOLFRM
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 74
Parameter
Upper
Coeff.
Std. Err.
(FARMS-None) 7
-4.9144532
4.41496
(ESOL/FARMS- 8
-20.883580
-9.69669
None)
Parameter
ETA Sq.
(FARMS-None)
(ESOL/FARMSNone)
7
8
Office of Shared Accountability
t-Value
Sig. t Lower -95%
CL-
4.75279
-1.03401
.30144
-14.24386
5.69907
-3.66439
.00026
-32.07047
.00133
.01651
Page 75
Manova Year 1 to Year 2 Comparison of Kndg Performance
HEAD START GROUP
manova skils4 by pracths(0,1) cohort(1,2)
/ CONTRAST(pracths)=SIMPLE(1)/ contrast(cohort) = simple(1)
/ print=cell(means) param(est EFSIZE ) signif(brief efsize)
/analysis=skils4 / des=constant pracths cohort within pracths
.
* * * * * * A n a l y s i s
o f
V a r i a n c e * * * * * *
1678 cases accepted.
504 cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values.
18159 cases rejected because of missing data.
4 non-empty cells.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cell Means and Standard Deviations
Variable .. SKILS4
4 of 4 Skills
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
N
PRACTHS
FDK/hs(1
COHORT
Cohort 1
COHORT
Cohort 2
PRACTHS
HDK/hs(2
COHORT
Cohort 1
COHORT
Cohort 2
For entire sample
51.028
59.239
50.036
49.184
535
552
25.087
43.750
47.974
43.427
49.690
49.974
287
304
1678
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SKILS4
'% of Students with all 4 Foundational Skills'
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:
(A) PRACTHS
(B) COHORT
'Contrast FDK group(17 schools) with HDK Group (22 schools)'
'Contrast Year 2 - Year 1'
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Tests of Significance for SKILS4 using UNIQUE sums of squares
Source of Variation
SS
DF
MS
F Sig of F
WITHIN+RESIDUAL
3957312.84
CONSTANT
3068362.56
PRACTHS
164182.13
COHORT WITHIN PRACTH
69736.73
S
1674
2363.99
1 3068362.6
1 164182.13
2 34868.36
(Corrected Model)
(Corrected Total)
3
1677
R-Squared =
Adjusted R-Squared =
230798.01
4188110.85
76932.67
2497.38
1297.96
69.45
14.75
.000
.000
.000
32.54
.000
.055
.053
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Effect Size Measures
Partial
Source of Variation
ETA Sqd
PRACTHS
.040
COHORT WITHIN PRACTHS
.017
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office of Shared Accountability
Page 76
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Estimates for SKILS4
--- Individual univariate .9500 confidence intervals
CONSTANT
Parameter
44.7760690
1
Coeff. Std. Err.
1.24284
36.02723
t-Value
.00000
Sig. t
42.33839
t-Value
-8.33375
Sig. t
.00000
PRACTHS
(FDK - HDK)
Parameter
Coeff.
2
-20.715030
Std. Err.
2.48568
COHORT WITHIN PRACTHS
Parameter
(Yr.2 - Yr.1)FDK
(Yr.2 - Yr.1)HDK
3
4
Coeff.
Std. Err.
8.21109305
18.6628920
2.94979
4.00164
t-Value
2.78362
4.66381
Sig. t
.00544
.00000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 77
Manova Year 1 to Year 2 Comparison of Kindergarten Performance
non-Head Start Group
manova skils4 by practnhs(0,1) cohort(1,2)
/ CONTRAST(practnhs)=SIMPLE(1)/ contrast(cohort) = simple(1)
/ print=cell(means) param(est EFSIZE ) signif(brief efsize)
/analysis=skils4 / des=constant practnhs cohort within practnhs
4612
1055
14674
4
.
cases accepted.
cases rejected because of out-of-range factor values.
cases rejected because of missing data.
non-empty cells.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Cell Means and Standard Deviations
Variable .. SKILS4
4 of 4 Skills
FACTOR
CODE
Mean Std. Dev.
N
PRACTNHS
FDK/nhs(
COHORT
Cohort 1
COHORT
Cohort 2
PRACTNHS
HDK/nhs(
COHORT
Cohort 1
COHORT
Cohort 2
For entire sample
SKILS4
52.317
61.430
49.969
48.705
1122
853
51.192
60.927
56.093
50.004
48.810
49.633
1342
1295
4612
'% of Students with all 4 Foundational Skills'
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES:
(A) PRACTHS
(B) COHORT
'Contrast FDK group(17 schools) with HDK Group (22 schools)'
'Contrast Year 2 - Year 1'
Tests of Significance for SKILS4 using UNIQUE sums of squares
Source of Variation
SS
DF
MS
F Sig of F
WITHIN+RESIDUAL
11256010.57
CONSTANT
14246376.17
PRACTNHS
740.72
COHORT WITHIN PRACTN 102692.88
HS
4608
1
1
2
2442.71
14246376
740.72
51346.44
(Corrected Model)
(Corrected Total)
3
4611
34260.57
2463.41
102781.71
11358792.28
R-Squared =
Adjusted R-Squared =
5832.20
.30
21.02
.000
.582
.000
14.03
.000
.009
.008
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Effect Size Measures
Partial
Source of Variation
ETA Sqd
PRACTNHS
COHORT WITHIN PRACTNHS
Office of Shared Accountability
.000
.009
Page 78
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Estimates for SKILS4
--- Individual univariate .9500 confidence intervals
CONSTANT
Parameter
Coeff.
1
56.4666070
Std. Err.
.73939
t-Value
76.36884
Sig. t
.00000
PRACTNHS
arameter
Coeff.
(FDK - HDK) 2
-.81432272
Std. Err.
1.47879
t-Value
-.55067
Sig. t
.58189
COHORT WITHIN PRACTNHS
Parameter
Coeff.
(Yr.2 - Yr.1)FDK 3
9.11295564
(Yr.2 - Yr.1)HDK 4
9.73439055
Std. Err.
2.24517
1.92522
t-Value
4.05892
5.05625
Sig. t
.00005
.00000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 79
Appendix 3.
Tables A-1 through A-10
TABLE A-1
Percentage of Kindergarten Students Attaining Benchmark on All 4 Foundational Skills
By the End of Kindergarten, Spring 2001
Head Start Students Only
Racial/Ethnic
Group
Gender
ESOL / FARMS
Groups
Head Start/Kndg
Groups
Special Education
Asian American
African American
White
Hispanic
Female
Male
Not ESOL or FARMS
FARMS Only
ESOL & FARMS
HS/Half Day K
HS/Full Day K
No
Yes (With IEP)
TOTAL
FDK (17)
4 of 4 Skills
%
n
69%
42
51%
125
63%
38
50%
281
53%
234
52%
252
62%
42
60%
239
42%
192
.
53%
486
54%
456
30%
30
53%
486
School Group
HDK (17)
4 of 4 Skills
%
n
64%
28
40%
116
33%
18
32%
138
41%
150
35%
150
38%
64
43%
164
25%
52
38%
300
.
39%
292
13%
8
38%
300
TOTAL
HDK (22)
4 of 4 Skills
%
n
43%
23
31%
124
32%
22
10%
87
32%
128
19%
128
34%
70
28%
126
9%
46
25%
256
.
26%
239
12%
17
25%
256
%
61%
41%
47%
38%
44%
39%
42%
47%
33%
32%
53%
43%
22%
42%
n
93
365
78
506
512
530
176
529
290
556
486
987
55
1042
TABLE A-2
Percentage of Kindergarten Students Attaining Benchmark on All 4 Foundational Skills
By the End of Kindergarten, Spring 2001
NON-Head Start Students Only
Racial/Ethnic
Group
Gender
ESOL / FARMS
Groups
Head Start/Kndg
Groups
Special Education
Asian American
African American
White
Hispanic
Female
Male
Not ESOL or FARMS
FARMS Only
ESOL & FARMS
No HS/Half Day K
No HS/Full Day K
No
Yes (With IEP)
TOTAL
Office of Shared Accountability
FDK (17)
4 of 4 Skills
%
n
69%
90
63%
245
69%
202
47%
378
65%
433
52%
482
69%
407
60%
234
39%
195
.
58%
915
59%
882
33%
33
58%
915
School Group
HDK (17)
4 of 4 Skills
%
n
66%
124
48%
245
65%
309
42%
170
59%
406
53%
442
60%
610
45%
113
30%
47
56%
848
.
56%
815
45%
33
56%
848
TOTAL
HDK (22)
4 of 4 Skills
%
n
62%
158
50%
284
66%
506
27%
168
59%
545
53%
571
62%
898
41%
98
11%
46
55%
1116
.
56%
1053
40%
63
55%
1116
%
65%
53%
66%
41%
61%
53%
63%
52%
33%
56%
58%
57%
40%
56%
n
372
774
1017
716
1384
1495
1915
445
288
1964
915
2750
129
2879
Page 80
TABLE A-3
Percentage of Kindergarten Students Attaining Benchmark on All 4 Foundational Skills
By the End of Kindergarten, Spring 2002
Head Start Students Only
Racial/Ethnic
Group
Gender
ESOL / FARMS
Groups
Head Start/ Kndg
Groups
Special Education
Asian American
African American
White
Hispanic
Female
Male
Not ESOL or FARMS
FARMS Only
ESOL & FARMS
HS/Half Day K
HS/Full Day K
No
Yes (With IEP)
TOTAL
FDK (01&02)
4 of 4 Skills
%
n
76%
49
59%
137
63%
30
57%
287
63%
239
57%
264
65%
52
65%
313
47%
129
.
60%
503
61%
477
38%
26
60%
503
School Groups
FDK (02)
4 of 4 Skills
%
n
67%
24
68%
144
78%
23
62%
132
68%
149
65%
174
77%
53
70%
219
40%
45
.
66%
323
68%
308
40%
15
66%
323
TOTAL
HDK (02)
4 of 4 Skills
%
n
50%
30
45%
116
55%
22
40%
102
52%
129
38%
141
55%
76
45%
147
31%
29
44%
270
.
45%
248
41%
22
44%
270
%
66%
58%
65%
55%
62%
55%
65%
62%
43%
44%
62%
59%
40%
58%
n
103
397
75
521
517
579
181
679
203
270
826
1033
63
1096
TABLE A-4
Percentage of Kindergarten Students Attaining Benchmark on All 4 Foundational Skills
By the End of Kindergarten, Spring 2002
NON-Head Start Students Only
Racial/Ethnic
Group
Gender
ESOL / FARMS
Groups
Head Start/Kndg
Groups
Special Education
Asian American
African American
White
Hispanic
Female
Male
Not ESOL or FARMS
FARMS Only
ESOL & FARMS
No HS/Half Day K
No HS/Full Day K
No
Yes (With IEP)
TOTAL
Office of Shared Accountability
FDK (01&02)
4 of 4 Skills
%
n
68%
107
66%
217
81%
207
63%
416
72%
448
64%
499
77%
473
70%
273
41%
151
.
68%
947
70%
883
36%
64
68%
947
School Group
FDK (02)
4 of 4 Skills
%
n
87%
178
76%
278
82%
327
59%
219
78%
485
74%
517
86%
664
65%
201
36%
61
.
76%
1002
78%
923
56%
79
76%
1002
TOTAL
HDK (02)
4 of 4 Skills
%
n
71%
172
61%
257
75%
488
38%
186
68%
542
61%
561
73%
856
48%
123
10%
48
65%
1103
.
65%
1026
56%
77
65%
1103
%
77%
68%
78%
56%
73%
67%
78%
64%
34%
65%
72%
71%
50%
69%
Page 81
n
457
752
1022
821
1475
1577
1993
597
260
1103
1949
2832
220
3052
TABLE A-5
Percentage of Students Reading At or Above the Grade 1 Text Level Benchmark
HEAD START ONLY
By the End of Grade 1, Spring 2002
School Groups
HDK (17)
FDK (17)
Racial/Ethnic
Group
Gender
ESOL / FARMS
Groups
Head Start / Kndg
Groups
Special Education
Asian American
African American
White
Hispanic
Female
Male
Not ESOL or FARMS
FARMS only
ESOL & FARMS
HS with HDK
HS with FDK
No
Yes (with IEP)
TOTAL
%
54%
41%
52%
38%
43%
39%
54%
48%
23%
.
41%
42%
21%
41%
n
35
96
27
231
190
199
50
213
112
389
361
28
389
%
65%
42%
13%
29%
40%
32%
50%
38%
12%
36%
.
37%
10%
36%
HDK (22)
n
%
53%
37%
44%
30%
39%
34%
40%
41%
17%
36%
.
38%
21%
36%
23
95
15
115
131
117
42
170
34
248
238
10
248
n
17
100
18
76
109
102
42
124
36
211
197
14
211
Includes only Spring 2002 Grade 1 students who remained in the same school group from Kindergarten 2001
TABLE A-6
Percentage of Students Reading At or Above the Grade 1 Text Level Benchmark
NON-HEAD START ONLY
By the End of Grade 1, Spring 2002
School Groups
HDK (17)
FDK (17)
Racial/Ethnic
Group
Gender
ESOL / FARMS
Groups
Head Start / Kndg
Groups
Special Education
Asian American
African American
White
Hispanic
Female
Male
Not ESOL or FARMS
FARMS only
ESOL & FARMS
No HS with HDK
No HS with FDK
No
Yes (with IEP)
TOTAL
%
63%
57%
72%
39%
56%
51%
68%
54%
17%
.
53%
54%
31%
53%
n
59
173
156
290
316
362
322
210
115
678
646
32
678
%
66%
49%
68%
32%
59%
52%
65%
44%
13%
55%
.
57%
30%
55%
n
105
176
245
138
324
340
449
153
39
664
631
33
664
HDK (22)
%
68%
58%
71%
40%
65%
61%
70%
47%
15%
63%
.
65%
38%
63%
n
132
224
396
129
446
435
684
130
34
881
815
66
881
Includes only Spring 2002 Grade 1 students who remained in the same school group from Kindergarten 2001
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 82
TABLE A-7
Percentage of Students Attaining Benchmark On 4 out of 4 Foundational Reading Skills
By the End of Kindergarten
For Students Enrolled in K in MCPS in 2000-2001 and in K in MCPS in 2001-2002
Race/Ethnic
Group
Gender
ESOL / FARMS
Groups in K
Head Start/
Kindergarten
Groups
Special Education
American Indian
Asian American
African American
White
Hispanic
Female
Male
Not ESOL or FARMS
FARMS Only
ESOL & FARMS
ESOL Only
No HS/Half Day K
No HS/Full Day K
HS/Half Day K
HS/Full Day K
No
Yes (With IEP)
TOTAL
Kindergarten
2000-2001
Spring
%
n
48%
29
69%
983
49%
1560
67%
3772
40%
1505
63%
3846
54%
4003
65%
5534
47%
1219
32%
628
39%
468
62%
5644
58%
918
34%
798
53%
489
59%
7441
41%
408
58%
7849
Kindergarten
2001-2002
Spring
%
n
64%
22
76%
1162
62%
1555
78%
3616
53%
1650
73%
3882
66%
4123
77%
5594
60%
1532
36%
510
37%
369
73%
4696
72%
1957
43%
522
62%
830
71%
7460
50%
545
69%
8005
Only includes students who missed less than one month of kindergarten
and had Fall & Spring assessments in K
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 83
TABLE A-8
Percentage of Students Attaining Benchmark On 4 out of 4 Foundational Reading Skills
In Fall of Kindergarten
For Students Enrolled in K in MCPS in 2000-2001 and in K in MCPS in 2001-2002
Race/Ethnic
Group
Gender
ESOL / FARMS
Groups in K
Head Start/
Kindergarten
Groups
Special Education
American Indian
Asian American
African American
White
Hispanic
Female
Male
Not ESOL or FARMS
FARMS Only
ESOL & FARMS
ESOL Only
No HS/Half Day K
No HS/Full Day K
HS/Half Day K
HS/Full Day K
No
Yes (With IEP)
TOTAL
Kindergarten
2000-2001
Fall
%
n
0%
29
4%
983
1%
1560
4%
3772
0%
1505
3%
3846
2%
4003
3%
5534
1%
1219
0%
628
1%
468
3%
5644
1%
918
1%
798
1%
489
3%
7441
1%
408
3%
7849
Kindergarten
2001-2002
Fall
%
n
5%
22
14%
1162
6%
1555
13%
3616
2%
1650
10%
3882
9%
4123
13%
5594
3%
1532
0%
510
0%
369
12%
4696
7%
1957
3%
522
3%
830
10%
7460
6%
545
10%
8005
Only includes students who missed less than one month of kindergarten
and had Fall & Spring assessments in K
N.B. Students received assessments in 2001-2002 after 6 weeks more of school than
students in 2000-2001
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 84
TABLE A-9
Percentage of Students Reading At or Above Benchmark by End of Year
On Grade 1 Text Reading Benchmark
For Students Enrolled in Grade 1 in MCPS in 2001-2002
Racial/Ethnic
Group
Gender
ESOL / FARMS
Groups in K
Head Start/
Kindergarten
Groups
Special education
American Indian
Asian American
African American
White
Hispanic
Female
Male
Not ESOL or FARMS
FARMS Only
ESOL & FARMS
ESOL Only
No HS/Half Day K
No HS/Full Day K
HS/Half Day K
HS/Full Day K
No
Yes (with IEP)
TOTAL
Enrolled in MCPS for K
2000-2001* & for G1
2001-2002**
%
n
63%
24
71%
880
49%
1334
70%
3272
38%
1314
63%
3403
57%
3421
68%
4840
45%
1053
28%
540
42%
390
66%
4926
53%
759
39%
703
40%
436
61%
6388
37%
436
60%
6824
All in Grade 1
2001-2002**
%
n
66%
68%
49%
70%
36%
63%
55%
67%
43%
27%
41%
64%
52%
38%
39%
61%
31%
58%
35
1343
1936
4375
1849
4687
4851
5417
1251
633
516
5654
901
787
476
8835
703
7818
*Only includes students who missed less than one month of kindergarten and had Fall &
Spring assessments in K .
**Only includes students with valid Grade 1 spring assessment.
TABLE A-10
Percentage of Students At or Above Reading Benchmarks by End of Year
For Kindergarten and Grade 1
For Students Enrolled in K in MCPS in 2000-2001 and also in Grade 1 in MCPS in 2001-2002
Race/Ethnic
Group
Gender
ESOL / FARMS
Groups in K
Head Start/
Kindergarten
Groups
Special education
American Indian
Asian American
African American
White
Hispanic
Female
Male
Not ESOL or FARMS
FARMS Only
ESOL & FARMS
ESOL Only
No HS/Half Day K
No HS/Full Day K
HS/Half Day K
HS/Full Day K
No
Yes (with IEP)
TOTAL
4 of 4 Skills in K
%
n
54%
26
69%
884
51%
1330
68%
3272
42%
1312
64%
3411
56%
3413
67%
4840
48%
1053
35%
540
40%
390
63%
4926
62%
759
36%
703
54%
436
61%
6388
41%
436
60%
6824
Grade 1 Text Reading
%
n
58%
26
71%
884
49%
1330
70%
3272
38%
1312
63%
3411
57%
3413
68%
4840
45%
1053
28%
540
42%
390
66%
4926
53%
759
39%
703
40%
436
61%
6388
37%
436
60%
6824
Only includes students who missed less than one month of kindergarten
and had Fall & Spring assessments in K and had valid Grade 1 spring assessment
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 85
Reading Performance of Special Education Students
Starting with kindergarten reading performance, less than half (41%) of special
education students met benchmark on four of four foundational reading skills by the end
of kindergarten for cohort 1. For cohort 2, the comparable figure is 50%. For both
cohorts, these percentages are lower than those for students without IEPs (see Table A-9
in this Appendix). However, like the students without IEPs, more special education
students attained the kindergarten benchmarks in cohort 2, compared to cohort 1.
For cohort 1, there is information on meeting the Grade 1 reading proficiency
benchmark. By the end of Grade 1, 37% of the special education students who were
enrolled in MCPS kindergarten in 2000-2001 attained the Grade 1 reading proficiency
benchmark (see Table A-10 in this Appendix).
This percentage is similar to the
percentage of special education students (41%) who met the kindergarten benchmarks on
four of four foundational skills.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 86
Figure A-1
Contrasts between Full Day Kindergarten and Half Day Kindergarten based on Multiple Analysis of Variance on Percentage
of Students that met Kindergarten Benchmark By the End of Kindergarten, Spring 2001
Head Start Students
FDK17 - HDK+17
19%
32%
FDK17 - HDK22
FDK17 = 17 Schools with Full Day
Kindergarten in 2000-2001
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Difference in Percentage that Met Benchmark *
Non Head Start Students
FDK17 - HDK+17
13%
FDK17 - HDK22
13%
0%
10%
20%
HDK+17 = 17 Schools with Half Day
Kindergarten in 2000-2001 (Full Day
Kindergarten initiated in 2001-2002)
HDK22 = 22 Schools with Half Day
Kindergarten in 2000-2001 (Full Day
Kindergarten initiated in 2002-2003)
30%
40%
Difference in Percentage that Met Benchmark *
*Read as follows: 19% more students in FDK17 schools compared to HDK+17 schools met the benchmark on 4 of 4
foundational skills in kindergarten.
Figure A-2
Contrasts between Full Day Kindergarten and Half Day Kindergarten based on Multiple Analysis of Variance on Percentage
of Students that met Kindergarten Benchmark By the End of Kindergarten, Spring 2002
H e a d S ta rt S tud e nts
FDK 17 HDK 22
18%
FDK +17 HDK 22
22%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
FDK17 = 17 Schools with Full Day
Kindergarten in 2000-2001 and 20012002
D iffe re nc e in P e rc e nta ge tha t M e t B e nc hm a rk *
FDK+17 = 17 Schools with Full Day
Kindergarten initiated in 2001-2002
N o n H e a d S ta rt S tud e nts
FDK 17 - HDK 22
HDK22 = 22 Schools with Half Day
Kindergarten in 2001-2002 (Full Day
Kindergarten initiated in 2002-2003)
19%
FDK +17 -
18%
HDK 22
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
D iffe re nc e in P e rc e nta ge tha t M e t B e nc hm a rk *
*Read as follows: 18% more students in FDK17 schools compared to HDK22 schools met the benchmark on 4 of 4
foundational skills in kindergarten.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 87
Figure A-3
Contrasts between Full Day Kindergarten and Half Day Kindergarten based on Multiple Analysis of Variance on Percentage
of Students at or above Grade 1 Proficiency Benchmark By the End of Grade 1, Spring 2002
Head Start Students
FDK17 - HDK+17
9% **
FDK17 - HDK22
9% **
FDK17 = 17 Schools with Full Day
Kindergarten in 2000-2001
0%
10%
20%
30%
Difference in Percentage that Met Benchmark *
40%
Non Head Start Students
0%
HDK22 = 22 Schools with Half Day
Kindergarten in 2000-2001 (Full Day
Kindergarten initiated in 2002-2003)
9%**
FDK17- HDK+17
FDK17- HDK22
HDK+17 = 17 Schools with Half Day
Kindergarten in 2000-2001 (Full Day
Kindergarten initiated in 2001-2002)
3%
10%
20%
30%
40%
** Significant contrast (p<= .05)
Difference in Percentage that Met Benchmark*
*Read as follows: 9% more students in FDK17 schools compared to HDK+17 schools met the Grade 1 proficiency benchmark.
Office of Shared Accountability
Page 88
Appendix 4. Kindergarten Decision Tree (2002-03)
Primary Assessment Decision Tree
Administer to all:
If student scores are:
0-6 on ROL
0-14 on Letter ID
0-3 on CAP
then
If student scores are:
7-12 on ROL
15-27 on Letter ID
4-8 on CAP
then
If student scores are:
13-18 on ROL
28-44 on Letter ID
9-12 on CAP
then
If student scores are:
19-21 on ROL
45-54 on Letter ID
13-16 on CAP
then
Administer
STOP
Administer
- Phonemic Awareness
Follow the Decision Tree to identify assessments
for each child. For students who score across
color bands on different assessments, use
professional judgment to determine the path that
best meets the needs of individual students. To
secure a more in-depth student profile, teachers
may choose to administer additional
assessments.
- Phonemic Awareness
- Hearing and Recording
Sounds
- Word Recognition
If student scores are:
14-19 on PA
9-12 on H&R Sounds
11-18 on WR
then
Administer
Level 1/2 Running Record
If student scores are:
20-24 on PA
13-15 on H&R Sounds
19-25 on WR
then
Administer
Appropriate
Running Record